Sitting of 11 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PETITIONS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL
  Petition from Wandsworth, in favour; to lie upon the table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from St. Ives, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  SOMALILAND EXPEDITION.
  Petition from Manchester, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS,REPORTS, ETC.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Appendix, Section 1, to the Sixty-eighth Report of the Commissioners, being for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into Present system of reporting Industrial Accidents [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FISHERIES (ICHTHYOLOGICAL RESEARCH).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed to inquire and report as to best means by which the State or Local Authorities can assist Scientific Research as applied to problems affectiong the Fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland, together with Minutes of Evidence. Appendix, and Index [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  FISHERIES (NORTH SEA FISHERY INVESTIGATION).
  Copy presented, of Reports of the British Delegates attending the International Conferences held at Stockholm, Christiana, and Copenhagen with respect to Fishery and Hydrographical Investigations in the North Sea, and Correspondence relating thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Island of Lewis—Skigersta Pier.
  MR. WEIR (): To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what progress has been made with the construction of a protecting wall for the Skigersta Pier, in the parish of Barvas, Island of Lewis.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murry.)
  It cannot be said that any progress has been made with the comtruction of this work, the County Council not having as yet come to a decision on the offer made to them by the Congested Districts Board in June 1901; but, in answer to an inquiry by that Board, the County clerk, on 11th October last, wrote to the effect that the County Finance Committee hoped to be in a position to proceed with the works before 31st December, up to which date the offer by the Board is available.

  India—Fatalities in use of Plague Serum.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many deaths have recedtly occurred in the Punjab through natives having been inoculated with contaminated plague serum; and will he say how many weeks elapsed before the use of this serum was arrested, and who is responsible for its issue to the medical staff.
  (Answered by Secrelary Lord George Hamilton.) Certain changes, stated to be in accordance with the recommwndations of the Plague Commission, were recently made in the manufacture of plague serum in the Plague Research Laboratory, Bombay, by the Director, with the object of expediting manufacture, reducing the dose, and increasing protective efficiency. On complaints reaching the Government of the Punjab from the inoculating staff that certain bottles of the fluid thus prepared had been found to be putrid, that Government, on 1st November, directed its discontinuance, after it had been in use for exactly a month. At that date only two suspicious deaths had been reported, but subsequently to the issue of the order I regret to say that twenty-one others occurred, nineteen ensuing from the use of one particular bottle. The doctor using this bottle had offered to inoculate himselg first, but the villagers accepted inoculation without this, no official pressure being employed. A thorough inquiry is being made as to the cause of the contaminated serum and the precise degree of responsibility attaching to the officers voncerned, and I have requested that the result may be telegraphed to me without delay. Inoculation has now been resumed with the fluid as previonsly used, under special precautions as to purity. The temper of the people is reported to be excellent. The Viceroy has authorised the Punjab Government to grant compensation to the families of the suffcerers.

  Differnce between Indian Government's Receipts and Payments as affected by Currency Rates.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON (): To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many sovereigns, since they were made legal tender at fifteen rupees, have been paid into the Indian Government's Treasuries in respect of land revenue, customs, and other taxes; and the number of those

  901
  coins paid out, during the same period, in lieu of fifteen rupees by the Indian Government for its local purchases of public works material and other stores, for salaries, interests, and other State obligations.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I regret that the information which the hon. Member desires is not available.

  Indian Irrigation Commissions' Report
  MR. WYLIE (): To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say when the Report of the Commission on Irrigation will be presented to the House.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) It is not possible to state when the Report of the Commission on Irrigation will be presented to the House, as it has not yet been submitted to the Government of India; but I have some reason to hope that the complete report may be in the hands of that Govenment before the end of February.

  Indian State Railways—Communication on Passenger Trains.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether arrangements can be made for the adoption of a system of intercommunication with the guard on passenger trains of the Indian Government Railways.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am not in a position to state what arrangements have been or can be made to secure intercommunication between passengers and the guard on State Railways, but I will make inquiry on the subject.

  Khairpur Currency.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for Indian whether he is aware that, although the Khairpur Native State rupee is once more accepted in payment of land rent, fines, etc., the State Treasury declines to recognise it except under a depreciation of five annas; will he state whether it is proposed to give effect to the scheme for the conversion of the Khairpur currency, which was recently under con
  902
  sideration; and will the cost of such conversion be defrayed from the general revenues of the Khairpur State, so that the loss may not fall on the people of the State.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am not fully informed as to the financial measures to which this Question refers, but I am aware that the attention of the Government of India is directed to the subject, and I am satisfied that they will do what is possible to secure an equitable arrangement of the matter.

  Khairpur—Government Sales of Salt.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that salt which is sold by the Government of India to the Khairpur Native State, is resold to the people at a profit to the State Treasury; will he ascertain the extent of that profit; and will efforts be made to secure the sale of salt to the people of this State at a price more closely approximating that at which it is purchased from the Government.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) With regard to the first part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply of 28th July last it; as to the second portion of it, it is not proposed to alter the arrangements by which salt in Khairpur State is sold at approximately the same price as in adjoining British districts.

  Cable Rates to West Africa.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON (): To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the cost of cable messages from London to the Gambia is 3s. 6d. per word, to the Gold Coast 5s. 8d. per word, to Lagos 6s. 3d. per word, and to Nigeria 6s. 4d. per word, all English Colonies on the West Coast of Arica, viz., Senegal, Conakry, lvory Coast, Dahomey, and French Congo, the charge is only one franc per word, although

  903
  these colonies are only from 100 to 150 miles distant from the English Colonies; whether he is aware that the English cable companies are endeavouring to make arrangements with the French companies to raise their rates to these colonies; and whether he will take steps to reduce the telegraph rate to the West Coast of Africa to the level of the rate from London to Capetown.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) My hon. Friend has, I think, been misinformed with regard to the rates from France to the French West African possessions. According to the information in my possession, the rates from France to the possessions specified are as follows: Senegal, 1fr. 50c. (say 1s. 2½d.); Conakry, 5fr. 51c. (say 4S. 5d.); Ivory Coast, 6fr. 11c. to 6fr. 31c. (say 4s. 11d. to 5s 1d.); Dahomey, 7fr. 61c. (say 6s. 1d.); French Congo, 8fr. 21c. (say 6s. 7d.) I am not aware that any arrangements are being made to raise the rates. As regards the rates from this country to the British West African possessions, the recent Inter-Departmental Committee on Cable Communications recommended that an attempt should be made to obtain a reduction in connection with the renewal of the Eastern Telegraph Company's landing rights at Porthcurno, and this recommendation will in due course be considered by His Majesty's Government.

  Australian Mails.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the delays in the transmission of the Australian mails from Naples to London, per Orient line, caused by their transport from the vessels and despatch by slow trains to London; whether he is aware that the last mails per Orient steamer from Sydney arrived at Naples on Thursday and were not delivered until late on Monday afternoon in London, and that it these mails had been carried on in the Orient steamer to Marseilles they would have been delivered in London by first post on Monday, beside saving the cost of transit through Italy; and whether he will take steps to remedy the alleged grievance.
  904
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain): The only instance in which there has recently been delay in the delivery of mails from Australia conveyed to Naples is that specified by the hon. Member. The mail landed at Naples on the 28th of November ought in the ordinary course to have reached London at 7 p.m. on the 30th, and it would not have arrived before that evening if it had been carried on by the Orient packet to Marseilles. As a matter of fact the mail did not arrive until the afternoon of the 1st instant; but I have no reason to believe that the delay, respecting which I had already instituted inquiry, was due to other than accidental causes. I do not think it would be expedient to alter the existing arrangements, the Naples route being as a general rule the more favourable of the two.

  Armagh Postmastership.
  MR. MACVEAGH (): To ask the Postmaster General whether he can state if it is proposed to fill the vacant postmastership of Armagh by transfer from England, or whether the appointment will be conferred upon a postal official acquainted with Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  I have not yet considered the list of candidates for the postmastership of Armagh, and I cannot therefore say who is likely to prove the best qualified.

  London Central Telegraph Office Staff.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): To ask the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that an order has been issued recently in the Central Telegraph Office, London, withdrawing certain privileges relating to Saturday modifications of duty that have been in existence many years; that the Controller, in his notice to the staff, expressed the hope that the new arrangement would give in the aggregate as much time to the staff as formerly; and that a telegraphist submitted a statement showing he had suffered under the alterations, and was told that if he did not like it he could leave the service; and whether it is intended that a member of the staff submitting a statement concerning the loss of one of his emoluments should be thus treated by his superior officer.

  905
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  Certain extremely irregular arrangements, which have prevailed in the Central Telegraph Office for some time without the knowledge of the Postmaster General, were recently stopped by my directions. I understand that the statement put forward by one of the staff was not a fair representation of the circumstances, and the Controller, after pointing this out to him, observed that if he was still dissatisfied with the conditions of his service he was at liberty to leave. There is nothing palling for my intervention in this matter of discipline at the present stage. There was no question of loss of any proper emolument.

  South African War—Postal Service Volunteers.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY (): To ask the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that members of the Post Office who volunteered for South Africa were told that they would receive the difference between their salaries and the cost of substitution, and that no mention was made that the Military pay would be taken into consideration, whether he is aware that a telegraphist named Priest, of the Central Office, London, has been informed that as he received the pay of a Yeoman the question of his Post Office arrears of salary cannot be taken into account; and whether he will state why Priest has been treated differently to other postal officials who served with the Yeomanry by having his Army pay taken into consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. It is not the fact that, when unmarried Post Office servants joining the Colours for service in South Africa were told that they would receive the difference between their salaries and the cost of substitution, no mention was made that the Military pay would be taken into consideration. On the contrary, they were informed that payment of such difference was subject to the condition that the amount of the difference, together with their Military emoluments, should not exceed the amount of the civil pay. In Priest's case this condition was not fulfilled.

  Post Office Sorting Clerks, Sorters, and Telegraphists—Pay, &c.
  MR. JACOBY (): To ask the Postmaster General whether he will issue a Comparative Return showing the number of sorting clerks, sorters, and telegraphists receiving the maximum pay of their class, with particulars of their service in London and all the offices scheduled in Class A.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  Such a Return (so far as the provincial offices are concerned) was given in 1899, and it appears to me that no useful purpose would be served by reproducing it now. I am therefore not prepared to assent to it.

  South Africa—Veterinary Examination of Cattle given to Repatriated Boers.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the facts that in the case of loans to the Boers two-thirds of such loans are made in kind, will he consider the expediency of arranging for oxen and mules which are thus handed over to the farmers to be subjected to a veterinary examination before they pass out of the hands of the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.)
  The hon. Gentleman is referred to the answer given to him on the 6th November by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

  Close and Patent Rolls—Errors in Welsh Spelling.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH ()To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward III., 1339-1341, and the Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry VI., 1422-1429, contain numerous mistakes in Welsh personal and place names, he will give instructions that in future such calendars of the Public Records as are issued, and contain entries of Welsh personal or place names, should be submitted to a competent Welsh scholar before publication.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) I am informed that the errors referred to are not numerous or important, and that the

  907
  percentage of errors is not higher in Welsh names than in English or foreign names. While the editors of the calendars are always glad to receive the help of competent scholars and to give careful consideration to any suggestions, it is not considered desirable to adopt the course proposed, which would cause great delay in the progress of the calendars, and which would necessitate similar action in the case of all other proper1 names.

  Uxbridge Rural District Council—Local Loans.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HART-LAND (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the sum of nearly £40,000 was raised and has been spent on drainage works in the parish of Ruislip (including Northwood) by the Uxbridge Rural District Council, under the sanction of the Local Government Board; whether he has received any official reports to the effect that the Uxbridge Rural District Council have paid the contractors in full before the dates named in the contracts, and that variations inconsistent with the nature of the approved scheme have been made without the consent of the Local Government Board; and whether he will now reconsider the necessity of holding a local inquiry upon the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Loans amounting to £39,000 have been sanctioned by the Local Government Board for the purposes of sewerage and sewage disposal in the parish referred to. I have not received any official reports to the effect that the contractors were paid in full before the dates named in the contracts, but I understand that there have been departures from the approved scheme. I am in communication with the Rural District Council on the subject, but it does not at present appear to me to be necessary that there should be a further local inquiry in this case.

  Uganda—Government Concessions.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY (): To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give a full statement of the concessions granted to either persons or companies in Uganda.
  908
  (Answered by Lord Granborne.) Returns on the matter of concessions have already been called for but have not so far been received. His Majesty's Government are not aware of any concessions being granted either to persons or companies in Uganda, except in the case of the East Africa Syndicate, who have been granted by His Majesty's Commissioner an exclusive permit for one year, with power to extend permit for an additional period of six months subject to approval of His Majesty's Commissioner, to prospect for precious stones and minerals over a tract of country 100 square miles in extent, with its centre at Butiaba Station in the province of Unyoro. As regards the East Africa Protectorate a concession for working certain pearl fisheries off the coast of the Protectorate has been granted to Mr. Rule for a period of ten years. The East Africa Syndicate have been granted certain prospecting rights for minerals under the mining regulations. Besides these certain small concessions have been granted locally for the development of Mombasa and other districts.
  Criminal Law—Compensation to Acquitted Persons—Case of Mr. R. M. Newton.
  MR. SCHWANN ()To ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr R. M. Newton, of Manchester, who was arrested and put in prison and tried, for alleged extensive fraud, at the Old Bailey, although, at a previous trial of the same case at the Mansion House, Alderman Ritchie dismissed the charge against him without calling upon the defence; and whether, having regard to the remarks of the Judge regarding the trial and this man's imprisonment, the age of Mr. Newton, and his previous character, he will consider his claim for compensation.
  Mn. HARWOOD (Bolton): To ask Mr. Attorney General, if he will consider the advisability of forwarding papers, in the case of Mr. R. M. Newton, of Manchester, who, in connection with the recent trial for alleged extensive frauds, was dismissed by the magistrate before offering his defence, yet was indicted at the Old Bailey, and was again dismissed without being called upon for his defence, to the Treasury, with a view to some compensation being made to him.

  909
  (Answered by sir Robert Finlay.) It is only under very special circumstances that the Treasury would be justified in awarding compensation in respect of a prosecution which has resulted in an acquittal. If such a practice became common it is obvious that it would unduly hamper the Director of Public Prosecutions in the discharge of his very arduous and responsible functions, which involve the duty of prosecuting in what appear to him to be proper cases, and might tend to prevent due investigation. The question of compensation rests not with me but with the Treasury. I ought, however, perhaps to add that on the materials before me I should not be prepared to advise the Treasury to make the present case an exception to the general rule.
  Shandangan Petty Sessions—Lynch v. Howard.
  MR. SLOAN (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of Lynch v. Howard at Shandangan Petty Sessions, on 18th November last, where, according to evidence, the defendant's solicitor wrote a letter and on the eve of sessions sent to telegram to the clerk of sessions to have Mr. John Barrett, J.P.,Macroon, to attend for this particular case: and whether he will state on what arounds the clerk of sessions received instructions from the defendant's solicitor to summon certain magistrates.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The clerk of petty sessions was instructed by the resident magistrate to notify the magistrates of the district to attend on the 18th November to adjudicate in the case mentioned. The clerk, however, omitted to communicate with Mr. Barrett, who, although a justice for the district, had never previously attended these petty sessions. But, at the request of defendant's solicitor, he telegraphed to Mr. Barrett to attend on the day preceding the hearing.

  Scarva (Down) Police Barracks.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the opinion of the local justices of the peace as to the necessity for re-establishing the
  910
  police barracks at Scarva, County Down, has been disregarded; and whether it is proposed to make further inquiry into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Careful consideration was given to the views of the local justices. In the circumstances, it is not proposed to make further inquiry in the matter.

  Royal Artillery—Promotions of lieutenant-Colonels
  COLONEL LONG (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to place the prospects of a lieutenant-colonel of Royal Artillery obtaining rank and employment as a full colonel on a level with those of a lieutenant-colonel of infantry.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Various questions connected with the promotion of lieutenant-colonels are at present under consideration, and I am not, therefore, in a position to make any statement on the subject alluded to.

  Militia Candidates for the line—Competitive Examinations.
  MR. LLEWLLYN (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to revert to a competitive examination, in military subjects only, in the case of candidates or the line from the Militia, as recommended by the recent Committee appointed to consider the education and training of officers of the army, referred to in Appendix 13, paragraph 5, of their Report; and, if so, when such change will be carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I propose shortly to make a statement on the future system of examination of Militia officers prior to their entry into the regular forces. The examination in march next will be under existing regulations.

  Mounted Infantry.
  MR. JOHN HOWARD (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the companies forming the mounted infantry regiments now returning from South Africa are to

  911
  rejoin the infantry battalions they originally belonged to, or whether they are to be retained as permanent mounted infantry regiments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The hon. Member is requested kindly to refer to a reply given to a Question put on Wednesday, 10th December, by the hon. Member for the Heywood Division of Lancashire.

  Militia Officers' Outfit Allowances.
  MAJOR RASCH (): To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the items of special expenditure incurred by Militia officers in South Africa with units other than their own that necessitated the £100 allowance; and if he will explain why it was refused to officers going to the front with their own corps.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This allowance was given to cover the expense of a different uniform and outfit which it was represented to the War Office was incurred by officers going to the front with corps other than their own. Militia officers proceeding with their own units wore the uniform of their corps.

  Reserve Officers' Promotion.
  DR. SHIPMAN (): To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many Reserve officers have been promoted after being called to army service in May, 1900; and whether these officers were graded in the higher rank in the Army List and received the pay of the higher rank while serving.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state why some Reserve officers, promoted after three months service, do, and others, promoted after three years service, do not receive the pay of the rank to which they have been promoted, and who appear in the Army List as serving in the higher rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) In reply to these Questions, 195 were so promoted up to the 31st October, 1902. These officers were promoted in the Reserve, but, in the case of some few who
  912
  continuedin employment after promotion, it has not been found possible to utilise their services in the higher grade conferred, as the establishment did not permit it. Those promoted will receive the pay of their rank except those in receipt of consolidated pay and departmental officers, whose pay is regulated by their grade in such department, and not by the rank of the officers.

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Training Ships.—Roman Catholic Seamen from the "Arethusa" and "Chichester."
    MR. TULLY (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state how many Roman Catholic boys and how many of all other denominations have been received into the Royal Navy during the last twelve months from the "Arethusa" and "Chichester" training ships.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The Admiralty have no information with regard to the points referred to in the hon. Member's Question. It is possible that he may be able to obtain the particulars from the "Arethusa" and "Chichester."

    Russian Concession at Tientsin.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what is the present position of affairs in reference to the Russian concession at Tientsin; whether the Russian Government are in occupation of any territory near the railway station or goods yard; whether the private owners are in occupation of the mining companies' yard, of the yards and junk wharves of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire, and Jardine, and W. Forbes, as well as of the light tramway line, and who is in occupation of the military college; and will he state what steps are being taken to clear up the situation.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CHAN-BORNE,): The Russian Government do not propose that the property of foreign owners should be included in

    913
    their concession. With regard the ownership of the land claimed by the railway included in the Russian concession, arbitration is proceeding. The goods yard was, we understand, entirely evacuated by the Russians in July, 1901, but we have no further information as to that part of the right hon. Baronet's Question. The private owners are in occupation of the mining campanies' yard, of the yard and junk wharves of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire, Jardine, and W. Forbes. The light tramway was bought out by the German Expeditionary Force, and is used by the German military authorities for transport, stores, &c. The Russian authorities are in occupation of the Military Collage. In answer to the last Question, his Majesty's Government await the result of the arbitration.

    South Africa — Recruiting of Native Labour from Central Africa and Uganda.
    MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if there are any restrictions placed by His Majesty's Government upon the emigration of the natives from the British Central African protectorate and Uganda to the new South African Colonies; and, if so, if the Government will take steps to remove these restrictions.
    LORD CRANBORNE: Under the regulations of British Central Africa and Uganda no recruiting of labour may take place without the permission of His Majesty's Commissioner. There are other provisions in the labour regulations enacted for the protection of the natives. Hitherto, labour recruiting in these Protectorates for South Africa has not been permitted, but the subject is now under consideration.

    British Cemeteries in the Ionian States.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, by the treaty of 29th March, 1864, between Great Britain, France, Russia, and Greece, whereby the Ionian Islands were ceded to Greece, and by the vote of the Ionian Assembly forming one of the bases of that treaty, the right of pro-
    914
    perty in the English cemeteries in the Ionian States was confirmed to the Government of the her Britannic majesty; whether the Greek authorities now propose to lease, or have leased, the English cemetery in Corfu to a Franco-Belgian company for the purpose of erecting therein a casino; whether the consent of His Majesty's Government has been asked for and obtained to this transaction; and what steps His Majesty's Government has been asked for and obtained to this transaction; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to prevent the desecration of the graves of the distinguished British civil and military officers and other British subjects buried in this cemetery.
    LORD CRANBORNE: With regard to the first part of the Question, it is the case that the right of property in the English cemeteries in the Ionian States was confirmed to Her Majesty's Government by the vote of the Ionian Assembly of October 12th -19th, 1863, which formed one of he bases of the Treaty of March 29th, 1864. Negotiations were, however, opened in 1891 for the transfer of the old cemeteries to the Greek authorities. No final arrangement has been arrived at, but His Majesty's Government have been careful to signify that, in the event of such a transfer, proper precautions must be taken to prevent the desecration of the cemetery. Enquiry will be made, and the whole subject will, if necessary, be reconsidered before any further proceedings are taken to complete the transfer.

    Venezuela—Anglo-German Naval Action.
    SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN (Stirling Burghs): I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether there is anything new from Venezuela.
    LORD CRANBORNE: Official information has been received through diplomatic and naval channels, to the following effect:—Three Venezuelan vessels were yesterday seized by armed boats from British and German men-of-war at La Guaira, and a fourth was disabled without resistance. A Venezuelan gunboat, the "Bolivan," was also seized at Port of Spain. The two prizes taken by the German commodore have been sunk. It was reported yesterday in Caracas that all German and British subjects were being arrested. Steps were at once taken

    915
    by the United States Minister, to whose care British interests have been confided, to verify the facts. The release of all British and German subjects has been demanded, but, so far as we are aware, this demand has not yet been complied with. It was reported that the British Consul at Caracas has been arrested, but it is not yet known whether such is the case. The British Vice-Consul at La Guaira, with some women and children, were taken on board British men-of-war during the night of the 9th-10th. It is stated that President Castro is holding the British and German subjects as hostages Up to the date of the last information, which appears to have left La Guaira last evening, all British subjects, though arrested, were so far unharmed.

    Tunbridge Wells Telephones.
    MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has yet come to any decision as to whether he will give his assent to the proposed sale of the Tunbridge Wells Corporation telephone undertaking to the National Telephone Company; and, if not, whether he can state the cause of the delay.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): After carefully considering the important questions of principle affecting the telephone system of the United Kingdom involved in the application of the Corporation of Tunbridge Wells, I decided that I could not give my assent to the proposed sale except on certain conditions which are necessary for the maintenance of the policy approved by Parliament in the Telegraph Act, 1899. The licence held by the Corporation imposed on the conduct of their telephone undertaking certain important obligations which do not apply generally to the licensed business of the National Telephone Company. The most important of these obligations are the following:—

    1. That the charges for the Exchange service shall be maintained within certain specified limits.

    2. That no favour or preference shall be shown in the charges made to any subscribers, and that no subscriber shall, as a condition of service, be required to grant way leaves except for the connection of his own premises with an Exchange.

    916

    3. That the construction of all plant shall be subject to the sanction and approval of the Postmaster General.

    4. That the subscribers in other areas to Exchanges of the Postmaster General, and of his other licencees besides the National Telephone Company, shall have the right to free intercommunication over the trunk wire system, without the imposition of "terminal fees" with the subscribers to the Corporation system, and that subscribers to a Post Office system in the same area shall have the right of intercommunication on terms to be settled by arbitration, if necessary.

    The National Telephone Company lately accepted as a condition of their licence in respect of the Tunbridge Wells area conditions 1 and 2, and thereby secured, under the operation of Section 3 of the Telegraph Act 1899, as a result of the establishment of the municipal telephone system, an extension of the period of their licence for the Tunbridge Wells area from the 31st December, 1911, to the 30th April, 1925, the date of termination of the Corporation licence. Under these circumstances I wrote to the Company on the 22nd November that I could not give my assent to the proposed sale unless they further accepted as applying in future to the whole of their system in the area the other obligations now attaching to the Corporation system, in order that all telephone business in the area might in future be conducted in accordance with the principles approved by Parliament; and I make a further very important condition. In permitting the extension of the Company's licence in local areas where municipal competition might be established, Parliament intended to place the competing systems on an equality, but it did not contemplate the enjoyment of this advantage without competition. I therefore thought it necessary to secure for the Postmaster General the right to terminate the Company's extended local licence on the 31st December, 1911, the original date of termination specified in their general licence. The Corporation licence, in order to provide for the continuance of the telephone service by the Post Office on its termination, gave the Postmaster General the right to purchase such of their plant as might, on the expiration of the Corporation's licence, be useful for Post Office purposes, on what are commonly known

    917
    as "tramway terms," that is at its fair market value as plant in use. I have extended this condition to the whole plant of the National Telephone Company existing in the Tunbridge Wells area in 1911. These conditions, coupled with the terms as to rates of subscription, &c., contained in the agreement between the Corporation and the Company, secure all the advantages contemplated by Parliament in sanctioning municipal competition as affecting both existing and future subscribers, and the development of the general telephone system, and I am glad to be able to state that 1 have to-day received from the National Telephone Company an assurance that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and looking at the matter not from the point of view of Tunbridge Wells alone, but from the broader standpoint as it affects the position of the Post Office and the Company in the country generally, they are prepared to accept these conditions.

    Parcel Post to Brazil.
    MR. CATHCART WASON (): I beg to ask the postmaster General if, in view of the fact that there is no parcel post between this country and Brazil, and the importance of the trade with that country, he will endeavour to secure and extension of the parcel post system of that country.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A parcel post with Brazil was established through the agency of the Portuguese Post Office on the 1st January, 1901. The Brazilian Post Office has during may years rejected the proposals of the British Post Office for the establishment of a direct parcel post; but fresh negotiations on this subject were commenced last year, and are still proceeding.

    Rates on London Water Companies' Reservoirs.
    SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HART-LAND (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the desirability of bringing in a Bill next session to exclude the reservoirs of Water Companies from the reduction in rateable values applicable to agricultural ponds.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNEMNT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The amendments of the law suggested by my hon. Friend, who has taken so much interest in this matter, is one with which my right hon. Friend had sympathy; but I cannot give any pledge as to the introduction of legislation next session for the purpose.

    Free Rod Fishing on the Orkney Foreshores.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury, as representing the Woods and Forests Commissioners, if he can now state when the regulation will be issued under which the rights of the Orkney public to free fair rod fishing on the foreshores will be preserved.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,): I understand this Question to relate to the right to fish for salmon and sea trout on the shores of the Islands of hey, Fara, and Ryaa little. The issue of regulations is postponed until an option of purchase f the right of fishing, now held by the proprietor of the islands is exercised or allowed to lapse. The question of purchase has to be settled by Martinmas, 1903. Meanwhile the Commissioners of Woods understand that persons desiring to fish with rod have found no difficulty in getting leave form the proprietor who rents the right from the Crown.

    Gort Resident Magistrate.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds notice was served on Captain Pery, R.M., Gort, to remove him from Gort during the past twelve months; for what reasons did he cease to be resident magistrate in Belmullet; and when is it proposed to transfer him from Gort.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): it is not and has not been proposed to transfer Captain Pery from Gort; consequently no such notice has been served upon him. He was transferred from Belmullet twelve years ago to satisfy the requirements of the public service.

    Longford Royal Canal
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the drowning of two men last week at Longford, owing to the unprotected state of the Royal Canal; will he state how many persons have been drowned in the same portion of the canal during the last ten years; and whether he will consider the advisability of instituting a prosecution against the persons responsible for its present condition.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; the Urban District Council has directed attention to this matter. The question whether it is practicable for the Government to take action is now engaging consideration, Seven persons have been drowned in the canal at this point during the past ten years.

    Clonmel Magistracy and Police.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the religious persuasions of the county inspector, district inspector, head constable, and resident magistrate in Clonmel, the capital of Tipperary; how many Roman Catholic magistrates have been appointed by the present lieutenant of the county; and whether any steps will be taken to equalise the number of Roman Catholics and Protestants so employed.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The officials referred to in the first part of the Question are Protestants. Of the remainder of the police force at Clonmel, twenty-three are Roman Catholics and seven Protestants. The religious proportions of the entire force in this Riding of Tipperary, according to the latest returns, are—Roman Catholics, 234; Protestants, 53. The present lieutenant of the county has appointed nine Justices of the Peace in the Clonmel district, of whom five are Roman Catholics. He will be happy to consider the names of any other eligible gentlemen of this persuasion that may be submitted to him.

    Convict Lynchehann's Escape.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many
    920
    persons have been arrested in Ireland during the last three months on the supposition that they were the escaped convict Lynchehann; what compensation has been paid to the persons so arrested and detained; and whether further instructions will be issued to the Royal Irish Constabulary in this case.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Two persons were arrested on suspicion. No compensation has been paid to them. The value of instructions given to the police in such cases would be discounted if announced beforehand.
    MR. TULLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to provide Ireland with a proper detective force?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Ardagh Cathedral
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works have received a complaint from the Rev. Canon O'Farrell, Ardagh,'County Longford, as to the state of the ruins of St. Mels Cathedral at Ardagh; and whether he can state what steps will be taken to preserve these ancient monuments.
    MR. HAYES FISHER: Communications on the subject have been received from Canon O'Farrell, but the ruins are not vested in the Commissioners of Public Works, nor can they take any action towards vesting them except at the request of the owner. The ownership is vested in the representative Church body.

    Hill-street (Roscommon) Sub-postmaster.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state on what grounds was Mr. John Beirne removed from the office of sub-postmaster at Hillstreet, County Roscommon, after 23 years service; and whether any refund has been made to Mr. Beirne for stamps supplied by him during the last month of the tenure of office at his own expense.
    MR, AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Beirne was removed from office because he had no suitable house in which to carry on Post Office business and is

    921
    not likely to be able to provide one. So far as is known no payment is due to him from the Post Office.

    Examination for Women Clerks in the Dublin Post Office.
    Mr. TULLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state what period has elapsed since the last examinations were held in Dublin for Women Clerkships in the General Post Office; when it is proposed to hold a further examination; and what notice will be given to the candidates who are now preparing for it.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The last examination held at Dublin for the situation of women clerks in the General Post Office took place in October, 1901. It cannot at present be stated when it will be necessary to hold another examination, but due notice thereof will be given by the Civil Service Commissioners.

    BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION—PERSONAL EXPLANATION (MR. A. J. BALFOUR)
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I should like to say a word of personal explanation. On December 5th I answered an unstarred Question of the hon. member for king's Lynn, who, I am very sorry to see, is not in his place. I ought to have given him private notice as to the purport of my answer. but the hon. Member asked me whether the Secretary to the Board of Trade in 1881 had in a memorandum stated that it had been decided by the highest legal authority that to impose a countervailing duty in order to neutralise a foreign bounty on sagar would be contrary to the most favoured-nation clause in existing commercial treaties, and whether the legal authority thus referred to was that of the law officers of the Crown. In answer to that i said that "we have no record of any opinion by the law officers given at that time upon the subject." I now find on further investigation that that answer was incorrect. I have no doubt myself that lord Farrer was referring to the law officers as the highest legal authority, and it is the fact that there is
    922
    on record an opinion of the law officers in 1880 which is in accordance with Lord Farrer's statement.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (): Can we have that opinion?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. The matter came before the House of Commons Committee sitting on the sugar question, and the opinion of the law officers was shown in confidence to the Committee. The substance of it, I imagine, can be discovered from the cross-examination pursued; but it was felt by the Foreign Office at the time—and quite rightly felt—that it would be contrary to all precedent and would be most inconvenient if the ipsissima verba of the law officers' opinion should be made a matter of public statement and public discussion. But it is the fact that Lord Farrer has accurately stated the general tenor of the law officers' opinion of that day.
    MK. LOUGH (): In view of this fact, will tho right hon. Gentleman reconsider his objections to give a further opportunity of discussing this most important question?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see the relevance between a discussion of the question as it is and the opinion given at that time.
    MR. LOUGH: It shows that the policy you are pursuing will be in contravention of the other commercial treaties which exist. Besides, it raises a large question.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not quite prepared to admit the hon. Member's contention.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    (2.30.) SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: Can the Prime Minister forecast the probabilities in regard to the Education Bill, and the business generally for next week?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The main business of the remaining part of the session is the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill, which may or may not occupy discussion in this House. That, of course, I cannot tell. Besides that, the House has really only

    923
    to finish the bnsiness now before it—the Uganda Railway Bill, the Osborne Estate Bill, and the Militia and Yeomanry Bill, about which an arrangement generally agreeable on both sides has been come to. There is no possibility that this House will be able to discuss the Lords' Amendments before Tuesday. No doubt the Bill will be down then, and I shall propose to devote the whole, or the main part, of Tuesday to dealing with them. On Friday of this week thebusiness will be the Irish Local Government Bill, and on Monday the remaining stages of the Bills I have just named.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
    That they have agreed to, Expiring Laws Continuance Bill: Electric Lighting Acts Amendment (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

    UGANDA RAILWAY [GRANT]—(REPORT)
    Resolution reported—"That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a further sum not exceeding £600,000 for the purposes of the Uganda Railway."
    MR. BRYCE ()said he would like at the outset of this discussion to say a few words upon this Vote. It was perfectly true that the time had passed when criticism could remedy anything that had happened already. The money had been spent. The extravagance was past, and some one might say that there was no great use of crying over spilt milk. But if those who spilt the milk were allowed to do so without having any observations addressed to them on their conduct, things would not be better, and might be worse. They have now had for the second or third time an extraordinary instance of miscalculation on the part of a Government Department. He did not think there had been for years past anything to parallel the want of wisdom and foresight in reagard to this railway. The estimate had been fallacious. Every time that Ministers had come and asked for further expenditure they had apologised for what had happened, and promised that things would be better, and yet, in a year or eighteen months, a fresh demand had been made. The first estimate was £3,000,000. They had now spent, including the estimate which
    924
    they were asked to vote that day, £5,550,000, and the railway was being conducted at a very heavy annual loss. What excuses were being made for that extraordinary miscalculation? The first was, as he gathered from what was said by the Under Secretary, that the expense incurred in making the part of the railway near the coast, over very level and dry ground, led those who were conrolling the works to form an inadequate estimate of the rest of the line, because they argued from what was being spent on that part of the line, that the total expenditure would be somewhere within their original limits. That was an extraordinary miscalculation for anyone who knew anything of tropical countries to make. It was not merely because the coast area for about 270 miles inland was comparatively level, but also because it was comparatively dry. But everyone who knew the tropics knew that it was when they reached the highlands of the interior that the rainfall became heavy, and the first thing that should have been determined was the rainfall to be expected in the interior. The country in the interior, as the House knew, rose to a height of eight or nine thousand feet, and the great tropicall rains came up from the Indian Occan, impinged against these mountains, and fell. These torrential rains had proved ever so much more severe than was expected, and to say that the experience gained near the coast was taken as an evidence of what would happen afterwards, was to show an extraordinary want of knowledge and foresighat. They were also told by the Under Secretary that the weather experienced was most exceptional. He supposed no Member of the House had ever travelled in any country without having been told the weather was exceptional. This country had been in our hands for ten or twelve years, and the Government had had admirable opportunities of surveying it and making all these preliminary inquiries. It did seem perfectly extraordinary that they should have been taken by surprise in this way. The Under Secretary had said that they did not know the country, but why did not they know it, and why did they not have a proper survey? Could anything be imagined more short sighted than to enter upon an

    925
    Undertaking which, on the most hopeful hypothesis, was bound to be most costyly, without having a proper survey? The tribes which had rendered a large part of the territory unsafe had practivally disappeared, and it would have been perfectly possible to carry out a complete survey from the shore of the lake all the way down to the coast. Why was not that done? It might have taken a little time; the commencement of the railway might have been delayed a year; but how much better it would have been in the in the long run to spend that time in preparing a survey than to embark on an undertaking of this kind with imperfect knowledge. He could not understand how, above all things, one fundamental principle had not forced itself upon the minds of those who were responsible. Why not have given the work out by contract? The Under Secretary said that he doubted whether any contractor would have undertaken such an uncertain work. Did he try? Was it properly advertised? Was every reasinable effort made to get a contractor to come in and offer? Was everything done that could have been done to relieve the Foreigh Office of responsibilities, and troubles, and uncertainties connected with such a work, and to put it into the hands of those whose business experience and professional skill enabled them properly to deal with it? If it were the case that the knowledge was so imperfect, it was surely all the more reason why time should have been spent in surveying. He could not understand why, if the Foreigh Office had to do the work itself, it should have entered upon it without the fullest knowledge of all the obstacles that had to be encountered. He could not understand how a Department like the Foreigh Office should be considered capable of turning itself into the business of a contractor and engineer and undertake a future. They had work ot this character.
    They had to think of the future. They had been told already that there was a heavy annnal loss in working the line. Of course that was to be expected. The Under Secretary pleaded that we were saving something in the conveyance of stores. No doubt we were, but we were not saving anthing which could be represented as a large reduction of the very heavy loss that was being experienced. What prospect was there for the future? It was said in the debate two or three ago that we
    926
    did not go to Uganda for commercial objects. That, no doubt, was perfectly true. He would not go into the general reasons as to why Uganda was taken, and what sort of dominion it was likely to prove. But let him say that he could not accept the rosy views which the Under Secretary was bound to present to them. Anyone sitting on the Treasury Bench was bound to be an optimist. But was there really any reason to expect a considerable commercial development within any time that we could foresee of such a country as Uganda and the country between the Great Lake and the Sea? It was quite true that Uganga— and the same could not be said of most of the country toward the Sea—that Uganda proper, and to some extent the countries immediatley surrounding it and atretching west, were baturally rich countries. They were fertile, were not indeed healthy, but were capable of being rendered more healthy, and they could rendered more healthy, and they could produce a great variety of tropical produce. But apart from the difficulty of transporting these tropical products, there was one real and underlying diflicnlty which applied to all these tropical territories, and which those who had not been in the tropics and had not seen the native on his native steppe, very imperfectly realised. That was the difficulty of labour. The native did not want to work. Why should be work? With a very little trouble he could produce what he wanted and live contented. People in these matters were rather misled by the example of India, where they had had civilisation for thousands of years, and the people had contracted habits of steady industry. There the people were always at work, and they were able to pay for our commodities; the population was increassing fast, and there was a porportionate increase in their exports and in their demand for imports. But in Uganda we had nothing of the kind. We had a comparatively thinly populated district, and the people led an easy happy-go-lucky life. They did not want to work; they had not the habit of working. They did not want our commodities, they were satisfied with what they had got. No doubt these things would change. The solvent and assimilating influences of civilisation would in the course of a century or two completely change of a century or two completely change the character of these people, and that civilisation which we saw

    927
    in the Strand would be found in Uganda. It would not be so interesting a world, but he supposed things would be so. But these things belonged to the future. The prospects of producing in Uganda sufficient to create an export trade, the prospects of a market to create an import trade, lay in the comparatively distant future. He knew that high authorities like Sir Harry Johnston entertained a high opinion of the country. He did not deny the country would improve, but would it improve itself enough for us to see our way to make this line a paying concern, and actually, as in a burst of optimism the noble Lord assured them, pay for the loan within 15 or 20 years which we were now making for the purpose of this railway.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORBE,): I did not say that was my opinion, but the opinion of very much better judges than myself, and I quoted Sir Harry Johnston and Sir George Goldie.
    MR. BRYCEsaid he was glad to see that the Foreign Office contained a man who viewed with critical scepticism these optimistic views. It was very unfortunate that we should be making all these loans; we were complicating and confusing our finance by the different colonial loans for different purposes. They disturbed the general position of the country, and people did not realise the various liabilities into which they were being led by these steps. He could not see that they could refuse this money. It was quite true, if anything was to be made of the country, they must have railways and steamboats. He would not to further into these matters. He believed the Member for Cleveland, who had been in the country, would be able to tell them something more about the causes of delay and the making of provisional lines. But he did think that without refusing to vote the money, it was their duty to have a discussion, and by debate to mark their sense of the mistakes that had been committed, and to endeavour to convey to the Foreign Office that it must not in the future undertake work of which its imperfect knowledge and defective experience render it, with all the talent it possesses for its own proper work, entirely incompetent.
    (2.52) MR. BRYNMOR JONES ()said he entirely agreed with many of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think that he had adequately expressed the opinion of some Members on that side of the House with regard to this railway undertaking. He did not look upon it, as the right hon. Gentleman apparently did, as one which we were forced reluctantly to carry out because we had taken the Uganda Protectorate.
    MR. BRYCE: I did not say anything of the kind. I merely said I would not discuss the question of the Protectorate.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he was sorry if he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but he certainly thought he spoke as if this country were, on that ground, committed to the railway. Personally, he approached the question from the point of view that these railway lines were a necessary accompaniment of our general policy. If we were going to extend our Empire we must have these railroads in order to develop the extensions. He did not think any excuse was needed for a further debate on this Resolution; indeed it was necessitated by the statement made by the noble Lord on Tuesday night. Memories of hon. Members in regard to these matters were shosrt, and he might, therefore, be forgiven if he reminded them what the position was in 1900 in regard to this scheme. The original undertaking commenced in 1893. First there was a survey for the line, and work was actually commenced under the auspices of the Foreign Office in 1895. In 1900 a very large supplementary grant was asked for, and a Bill had to be brought in in that year. There was nothing at all in the statement made by the Minister in charge of that Bill, the predecessor of the noble Lord and the present Secretary of State for War, which indicated that there was to be any further request for money beyond the mere assertion that, in winding up a large undertaking of that kind, it was quite possible that some small additional charges would have to be provided for. He was under the impression that at that time a true estimate of the total cost had to be made—such an estimate as people in private life would have been justified in expecting to be prepared by

    929
    the skilful and careful men in the employment of the Government. It was not until last session, however, when they were told that the railway was approaching complection, that a hint was given that so large a sum as £600,000 more would be required. What did the noble Lord say on the preceding Tuesday night? He first stated that he had to make the demand owing partly to causes over which the Government had no control, and partly, as he frankly admitted, to mistakes which ought not to have occurred. Of course, he was prepared to agree that the work of constructing a new railway in a country not well known was an adventurous undertaking. But he found in the noble Lord's memorandum no statement of circumstances which men of skill and knowledge might not have been forewarned about. Then with regard to the admitted mistakes, it seemed to him that they ought not to allow that occasion to pass without inquiring what mistakes were made and by whom, and what had been done in regard to the persons making them. He had had considerable experience in arbitrating on disputes affecting undertakings of this nature, and he had seen that private employers were vigilant enough to deal properly with engineers and others in their service who were guilty of mistakes which landed them in losses. Had this Committee of the Foreign Office been as vigiland in dealing with those who made the mistakes, which the noble Lord admitted had been made? The noble Lord told them on Tuesday that there was not in 1900, five years after the underataking had been commenced, and When over 300 miles of the line had been made, a complete and detailed survey by means of which the quantities could be made out. Whey did not the predecessor of the noble Lord at the Foreign Office tell the House of Commons that that was the case? He could quite understand that the first survey, made in 1893, might have been very hasty, and not very carefully thought out. It was not such a survey as would be made for similar undertakings in civilised countries. There was bound to be some vagueness in it, but after 300 miles of the railway had been made it was difficult to understand how it was that the Committee
    930
    of the Foreign Office allowed the then Under Secretary to come to the House for a very large Grant without telling it frankly that the surveys had not been complected in the ordinary engineering sense. Why, he would also like to know, was an estimate based upon such imperfect material placed upon the Table of the House of Commons on that occasion? They were entitled, he thought, to ask the noble Lord to seriously consider whether this Foreign Office Committee had performed its work properly. The notion that a Committee sitting in London could make a railway in Uganda in a way in which a railway ought to be made, on purely businesslike considerations, was one open to considerable criticism, but he would not go into it at that moment; he would content himself with pointing out that among the representatives of industrial constituencies, in which the very large and important concerns were carried on, there was a growing feeling of uneasiness as to the way in which our public offices were doing their practical work.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had referred to the continual under-estimating, or, as it might more properly be called, mis-estimating, in the constructing of the railway. They now found, with regard to this undertaking, that the public officialsempolyed by the Government had committed mistakes, which, if committed by the employecs of an ordinary employer, would have been met with vigilance, and probably wityh severity. In the Paper which had been somewhat belatedly laid upon the Table of the House on Tuesday, he found miscalculations which were wholly unwarranted, and which were certainly not excused by anything appearing in that document. for instance, formations and earthworks. were estimated in 1900 at £844,607, and were now estimated at £1,152,403. If a blunder of that kind had been committed with regard to only 250 miles of railway by an engineer employed by any ordinary firm, would there not have been at least considerable disturbance in the affaris of the firm? No excuse had been given with referance to that. The rains might have something to do with it, but surely the rains ought to have been taken into account in 1900. If the engineers had taken the troble to find out from skilled persons whar was likely to happen.
    the rains would have been provided for. Again, the permanent way was estimated at £1,379,000; now it had risen to £1,453,000. He should like to know why that was. Surely the engineers ought to have known what the permanent way would cost. He only mentioned these things in order to justify the anxiety which was felt in the country in regard to the manner in which Government Departments,— not alone the Department of the noble Lord—carried on their work. The country felt that it was not as well served as private employers were. The noble Lord said that they had a good article in the Uganda Railway. He had his doubts about that, and: they were based on the Report which was issued last year by Colonel Gracey. He frankly admitted that the matter could not be judicially or fairly treated in detail in a public discussion, but he noticed one or two statements in the Keport which caused him to doubt whether they had got such a good railway as the noble Lord tried to persuade them they had. Colonel Gracey reported that from mile 16 to mile 102 there ought to have been a totally different alignment; and practically recommended that the line should be relaid. Colonel Gracey was a member of the Foreign Office Committee.
    *LORD GRANBORNEsaid that perhaps ho ought to correct a mistake he made on Puesday, when he said that when Colonel Gracey inspected the line he was a member of the Committee. He was now a member of the Committee; but was not a member when he inspected the line.
    Mr. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that Colonel Gracey was sent out as our independent expert, and the result of his examination was a very damaging Report. He was glad that Colonel Gracey was now a member of the Committee; and he was not attacking him in the least. The part of the line which Colonel Gracey reported on adversely as regarded alignment was the easiest portion, being nearly level. There seemed to be great uncertainty about purely practical matters. Colonel Gracey reported that some of the temporary diversions went so far afield that the rail head was completed before they were. Then as to the temporary inclines, of which he had some photographs, were the to be removed?
    *LORD CRANBORNEsaid that of course they were temporary.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONESasked what was the point of making them at all. Colonel Gracey also reported that 250 miles of ballasting would have to be done, at a cost of £125,000. Why had not the question of ballasting been raised before? Either it was, or was not, necessary. If it were not necessary, he could not understand Colonel Gracey saying it was. He ventured on Tuesday to make a comparison between the Uganda Railway carried out by the Foreign Office Committee and the Beira Railway carried out by a firm of contractors. The Secretary of State for War said that the conditions were dissimilar but the right hon. Gentleman did not prove that, because there were only two degrees difference involved. The noble Lord said that the Beira Railway was the worst constructed railway in Africa. He ventured to deny that. He had made inquiries on the subject, and he thought the noble Lord would be sorry he had made that statement when he knew that the railway had been built absolutely according to specification, and that it had been passed by a Government Department. He could not help thinking that the noble Lord had been misled by the fact that during the recent war in South Africa a change in the gauge was being made. When the Yeomanry were sent to operate in the northern part of the Transvaal, he understood there were difficulties; but these difficulties were not due to the construction of the line. The line, in fact, had to be re-constructed in order to remedy a mistake on the part of the engineer in regard to the gauge, with which the contractors had nothing whatever to do. He ventured to think that before they voted this large sum of money they should be very vigilant indeed in regard to how it was going to be spent. He would not move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name, but content himself with the protest he had made.
    (3.17.) MR. THOMAS B AYLEY ()said that on a previous occasion he had asked what were the concessions which had been granted to Companies in Uganda. The noble Lord had frightened many hon. Members on that side of the House when he used on that side of the House when he used

    933
    the. word "concessions." He was glad to think, from a perusal of the Paper presented to the House, that, so far, not very much harm had been done. They had a fear that if the Government began granting concessions they might have the same experience in the future as in the past. There was one concession in regard to certain pearl fisheries on the coast of the Protectorate—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order: That lias nothing to do with the Vote of £600,000 for completing the Uganda Knilway, which is the question before the House.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEYsaid he would not pursue the subject further, since it would, he believed, come up under the Protectorate Vote. [Lord CiiANBORNE: Hear, hear.] In the Appendix to the Memorandum, at page 5, there was an estimate of £80,747 for surveys. Now, these surveys had been going on for a goocl many years. In fact the Memorandum stated that there had been three surveys. He should think that a great deal of the trouble the Foreign Office had had in making this railway would have been saved had they spent more money at the beginning in the survey. Before they were finished with this railway they would have to spend £10,000,000 [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] Yes; next year they would have to come for a Vote of nearly a million, for orders had been given for material which was wanted to the extent of £500,000 or £600,000.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: All that is taken into account in these tables.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEYsaid that on page 7 of the Memorandum it was stated that the cost to end of September, 1899, for rolling stock was £240,332, and if that was added to the value of the rolling stock under supply, it amounted to £455,707, which must be paid for next year.
    *LORD CRANBORNEthought that the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. The Return was divided into warious sections. The first was as to the
    934
    cost for rolling stock up to September, 1899, and the next was the basis on which the original estimate was framed. If the lion. Gentleman wanted to find out the details of the new estimate, he should look a little further on at page 8.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEYsaid that the cost of rolling stock up to September,1899, was £240,332, and he thought the great bulk of that must have been paid for; but the Government must come for another estimate next year. The other day he had asked the noble Lord to give the House the terms and conditions of the commission which was paid to the Crown agents for the Colony. That question was raised two years ago, and it was promised to be gone into. Very large sums had been paid in the past to the Crown agents for the Colony as commission, and he had no doubt that they would continue to be paid. What he wanted to know was, what these Crown agents did for the very large commission which they were given. He was very glad that the House had had this discussion on this Vote. The railway was absolutely necessary, but its construction should bo conducted in a proper business manner. Any business man would look into the accounts, see what the railway was, and what it was expected to do before he year after year, regardless of an enormous number of loeo-and trucks and passenger carriages—ten times as many as would be required for years. The traffic would have to grow, or they would have to take up the rails. They all hoped that the traffic would grow, and that the railway would form an outlet for employment. But until it had grown they had no right to spend so much money on rolling stock and in making stations. He should most decidedly go to a division.
    (3.23.) MR. LOUGH ()said that when this Vote was under discussion the other night he expressed the opinion that all these details, although important in themselves, were not nearly so important as the general question of the position of the enterprise as it at present stood. The railway was nearly completed; they had jot an estimate of the working expenses

    935
    each year, and they could look at the prospects of the railway for the future. They had spoken of it as the Uganda railway. He ventured to say that that was a mistake, for it never touched Uganda at all. It should he called the Mombasa and Victoria Nyanza Railway. It was a great factor in our occupation of that country. The railway had become the central feature in our administration of the country. There was a saying that Egypt was the Nile; and it would be equally true to say that this railway was the British East African Protectorate. It should be remembered that the House had already this year voted £657,000 for Uganda, of which £250,000 was for the railway; and now the Government came asking for £600,000 more. The fact was that these payments would go on annually increasing. By far the most interesting figures in the Return laid on the Table of the House were those in page 4, to which he would be very glad if the noble Lord would direct his attention. There was a statement, without any comment, that the working expenses in 1900 amounted to £350,393, and in 1901 to £378,891. Just above that they had the receipts, including the general traffic and the Protectorate stores, and these amounted to £80,797, so that there was a loss 011 the working expenditure of £300,000. What he wanted to know was where did this loss in working expenditure come out of? It could not come out of the grant in aid to which he had referred; it must come out of the sum which the House was voting as capital expenditure.
    *LoRD CRANBORNE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. LOUGHsaid that that was a very important admission on the part of the noble Lord. It should be voted as a charge for the year, because there could be no return for these working expenses. In the table already quoted, he had sought to find some explanation of these large working expenses. In the second column on page 5, he believed, the working expenses were put down under the head of "general charges," which amounted to £484,000. That was where the loss came in. He turned to the explanation given on page 11, under the head of "general charges." That explanation was that the chief engineer had "only
    936
    estimated those charges up to the date of the rails reaching Lake, surmising that after that date a large proportion of the staff would be charged to Revenue Accounts; but it had been decided that until the rails were on the permanent alignment, all must be charged to capital." So that here they found that the large loss on working expenditure was not voted for annual payment, but was charged to loan, That seemed to be extremely extravagent. It was hard to find an exact parallel in this country to the working of the Uganda Railway, but there was a line in Scotland, 438 miles long, where the expenses were £340,000 a year. There was another line in Ireland, 550 miles long, and the working expenses were £340,000. Those were instances of regular working lines upon a most expenses scale. Why should the working, expenses of this railway in Uganda be-anything like £380,000 a year? This-was a matter upon which they certainly should have a better explanation. It meant, in addition to the capital expenditure, that the British taxpayer would have to find this £300,000 a year extra, and that would make their expenses in Uganda nearly one and a half millions a year. Although part of this money had; been raised by loan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to deal with it.There had been a hint of new expenditure upon steamers on one of the lakes in connection with the railway, and he should like the noble Lord to say if that expenditure was covered by this estimate?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: Not at all.
    MR. LOUGHsaid the expenditure provided was in connection with the railway at one end, but he wished to know if further expenditure was not going to arise at the other end near Mombasa. Unless some steps were taken in this matter, he was sure that no reduction would be possible for some time to come. Allusion had already been made to the views Sir Harry Johnston had expressed in a work which had recently been published. This work gave an exceedingly interesting summary with regard to the railway and the total expenditure that might be incurred, and he agreed that the total cost of the railway would be covered by the present

    937
    estimate. Before the railway was finished the total capital outlay would be about £11,500,000. Sir Harry Johnston said there had been no absolute discovery of mineral wealth, although ostriches, coffee, sugar, India rubber, tobacco, and timber were to be found, 'nit they were not produced in remunerative quantities. This was the country in which they had sunk £11,000,000 or £12,000,000 with no prospects of getting it back again. That was the question towards which this House ought to look. He had heard something about the natives stealing bolts and nuts, but they would never find them again. The policy they were pursuing in Uganda was a great question towards which hon. Members would have to turn their attention. What was to be the filial result? There was practically no population to use the railway, and the goods traffic there was infinitesimal. Sir Harry Johnston recommended that this £12,000,000 should be turned into a national debt, to be repaid by the inhabitants by instalments beginning ten years hence. He thought that would be the worst secured national debt in the world, and it would become a heavy barrier to any colonists going out there. They need not question any more the difference between Imperial ideas upon this question, for there really was no difference. He wanted their Imperialism to be shown to be a little cheaper. For this expenditure there was no return, and no possibility of any. He suggested that they should send out some practical business man, and tell him that this country could not afford a, loss of £300,000 a year upon this railway, and it must really be brought down to £200,000. This expenditure ought to be cut down in the interests of the taxpayers of this country. They could not afford to spend such a large amount of money in Uganda, and he hoped the noble Lord would satisfy the House by holding out some immediate prospect of a reduction.
    *(3.35.) MR. HERBERT SAMUEL ()said he rose to take part in the debate, not only because he had long taken an interest in the affairs of East Africa, but also because he was, he believed, the only Member of tin's House who had visited the kingdom of Uganda and had travelled on the railway throughout its length.
    938
    Two questions, separate and distinct' arose upon this Vote. The first was the question whether or not this railway was necessary. The second was the question whether its construction had been carried out with a due regard to economy. As to the necessity for the construction of the railway he entertained -no doubt whatever. The railway was the inevitable consequence of annexation, and it was impossible to govern this Protectorate efficiently and cheaply without such means of communication. The journey from the coast used to take three months marching, and the cost of carrying goods was then about £200 per ton. Under those circumstances it was obvious that either the cost of government by the liritish in that Protectorate must have been very great, or else that the government would have been inefficient. The construction of this railway was inextricably bound up with the question of annexation. It was true that the annexation of Uganda was not to be justified merely on the grounds of commercial profit. The soil was for the most part very fertile, and there could be a very large trade in produce with the neighbouring countries. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen had said that the natives were not willing to work, but that was not so, and there was at present a demand for English goods. They liked our linen goods, soap, and umbrellas, and were willing to work in order to obtain the means of purchasing the commodities by which they set store. There were many other things which could be imported, and many products which could be exported in exchange. But, on the other hand, the world's supply of tropical produce at the present time was so large that it was very likely that there would not be any remunerative trade in these products from Uganda for some time. The main reasons for the annexation were different. There were political reasons. An active party had existed in Uganda, led by the French Catholic priests, which openly advocated the annexation of the country to France. A German had actually succeeded in making a treaty, which had subsequently to be disavowed, establishing German influence there. If this country had not taken over Uganda it would have been undera foreign Power now, and a wedge would have been driven between the Soudan and British East Africa. The condition of

    939
    the natives during the eight years the British flag had been flying over Uganda had vastly improved They were a highly interesting race. They were a very intelligent people, skilful handicraftsmen, eager for education. They greatly appreciated British rule. He had an opportunity of speaking to many of the native chiefs through interpreters, and they invariably volunteered statements that they were grateful for British rule, and appreciated the benefits which that rule had conferred upon them. One of them told him that now they would have no more wars, and they were only anxious to help the British Government to keep the country happy and prosperous. Before the British went there the country was the scene of continual internecine conflicts, and the kings used to be guilty of barbarous cruelties in the wanton execution of natives, as Spekc, Stanley and the missionaries had testified. The slave trade was rife, and the minor chiefs made many cruel exactions from the peasantry. All those evils had now been stopped with a firm hand. There were now many mission stations throughout che country, which were much welcomed by the people. This seemed to be the one tropical country where, in recent years, missions had been a genuine success. Schools had been established there, and there were hospitals in the various districts. [An HON. MEMBER: Are they voluntary schools'?] Yes, they were voluntary schools, and he only wished that the Government could see their way clear to make a grant to that class of voluntary schools at all events.
    It appeared that all those benefits counted for nothing with some hon. Members. The hon. Member for Battersea said that he would rather spend £ 10,000,000 upon a railway in Essex than £1,000 upon a railway in Uganda.
    MR. JOHN BUKNS (): Hear, hear.
    MR. HEKBERT SAMUELsaid he was sorry to find himself in conflict with the hon. Member upon this question, for he generally found himself in accordance with the views of the hon. Member upon domestic questions. It appeared to him to be a monstrous doctrine that the duties of this country were limited solely to the people of this country, and that
    940
    because a man's skin was black you should not help him; because he lived in another continent you should pay him no attention. The principles of progress could not be limited merely to our own shores, and he ventured to-say that if this was to be the new humanitarianism, if these were the doctrines of modern philanthropy, if these were the new principles of sociaL reform, they had fallen oft' very greatly from the time when humanitarianism was a world-wide creed, and allowed no, distinctions of race and country. He had always held that one of the most glorious pages in the records of that House was the page on which was inscribed the Vote of £20,000,000 for the freeing of the slaves. Such expenditure as this stood on a similar footing. It was money spent for the uplifting of the backward peoples of the world. Charity ought to begin at home, no doubt, but he had yet to learn that it ought to end there. Approving of the general policy of annexation in regard to Uganda, he must therefore approve also of the construction of the railway.
    As the Under Secretary for Foreign A flairs had said, this railway was a good article, and it appeared to him to be a well-built railway, and competent judges had confirmed this opinion. One of the most remarkable assets they had in regard to this railway was the railway workshops which had been built at Nairobi, and which, employed 600 artisans. These workshops were well-equipped with modern machinery, and he believed that they made everything that was required for the railway except wheels and rails. This was all being accomplished by Indian labour on the spot, under the direction of English engineers.
    Turning to the question of expense he thought this was a case where the greatest economy should have been observed. For many years to come there was likely to be a very small revenue from the railway. The territory through, which it passed was very thinly populated. They might go for miles without seeing a, soul. The stations were almost all groups of corrugated iron huts in the midst of unpopulated plains. It was true that around Nairobi there was a great highland plain about as large as England in which the climate was perfectly healthy,. and in which Europeans were likely to-settle. Sir Charles Eliot, the Chief Commissioner of British East Africa, had said

    941
    that in time it was likely to become another New Zealand. There was also the prospect of the formation of a large Indian colony by the shore of the lake. It was possible that valuablemineral wealth might be discovered, and it was possible that valuablemineral wealth might be discovered, and it was certain that the new steamers now being built would bring from the thousand miles of coast lands round the lake large quantities of tropical goods. But this was in the future, and it would take many years to develop these resources so as to become a source of profit. He had had many opportunities of talking to English people in East Africa and Uganda upon the question of the cost of the railway. He had approached the question absolutely without bias; if anything, his sympathies were rather with those who had constructed the railway, because he knew well what diffculties they had had to contend with. He had spoken to a large number of people upon this point— administrators, traders, missionaries, doctors, soldiers, engineers—and the unanimous opinion of every single one of them was that there had been great extravagance in the building of the railway, that there had been frequent waste and some laxity of financial control. He never heard an opposite opinion upon this point form any single individual. He was not stating his own view, for he was only in the country for a about two months. and he was not an engineer. But he had no hesitation in saying that this was the view of European public opinion throughout Uganda and East Africa. They believed that due regard had not been paid to economy, and that a great deal of the nation's money had been constructed at great cost, the whole of which would bring no return. When he travelled on the railway in March and April of this year. the permanent line was nearing completion; but one travelled for miles and miles, for hour after hour, on temporary lines passing over embankments, through cuttings, over bridges; and on the hillsides below one could see hundreds of coolies at work building the permanent line. They had been building not one but two railways. The expense of this temporary line had been incurred simply on account of the haste to get to the lake. Then there was the rope incline
    942
    which cost £31,1,000, and which cost between £6,000 and £10,000 a year to maintain, but now that the permanent line had been completed, the incline had been completely dismantled. It was like one of those great life going down to the sea short, and was a very expensive thing sea shore, and was a very expensive thing to construt and work, He could never see what advantage there was to get to the lake in 1901 at such a great expense instead of waiting until 1903 for the permanent line to be completed, and if instructions had not been sent to the engineers to get to the lake at an unduly early period many hundreds of thousands of pounds might have been saved. In the future they would have to undertake a further expenditure. The twon of Nairobi, with about 9,000 inhabitants, had been built by the railway for its own headquarters. That town was built on a plain surrounded On the hills the residences of by hills. the British administrators and several of the chief English officials of the railway had been built. These were fairly comfortable bungalows on the hill sides. Down on the plain were rows and rows of corrugated iron buildings in which the railway officials were housed, and also the African natives who were employed on the railway. All these houses would have to be moved away from their present sites in the near future because they had been buit on a dead level which it was impossible to drain, although great ditches had been cut across the plain at great expense. The consequence was that in the rainy season the place became unhealthy. When he was there bubonic plague was rife among the Indians in Nairobi. Considerable expenditure would have to be incurred in order to move that town from a site which ought the never to have been chosen up to an equally convenient site close at hand. He asked the noble Lord why the town of Nairobi had been built on this particular site.
    He very much doubted whether sufficient efforts were made to secure African labour for this railway Practically the whole of the labour had been imported from India brought from India, and he had heard but two railways. The expense of this many persons who had experience of the natives declare that if proper steps had been taken by men acquainted with the habits and feelings of the natives

    943
    a large number of unskilled labourers could have been obtained in the country for this work. There had been one, and only one, considerable saving on the estimate, and that was with regard to ballasting. He found the following statement on page 9 of the "Memoranda relating to the Uganda Railway"—
    "By working slowly and with indigenous labour it has been found that a lower rate may be taken, which accounts for the less demand under this head."
    He found that the reduction on the estimate was 20 per cent., because they had been willing to work more slowly than before, and because they had obtained a considerable amount of native labour. All these things ought to have had more careful attention from the Government than they had had. A very large expense had been caused by the failure of the contractors to deliver viaducts at the time the contract specified. There had been heavy expenditure owing to the difficulty of getting the necessary bridges in time. He asked the noble Lord whether there were any penalties under the contracts, and whether they would be enforced, so that this country might be recouped in some degree for the loss it had been put to in consequence of the delay in supplying the viaducts. He was told many times that if the Government would order an inquiry to be held into the way the money had been spent they would discover very many strange things. There had been one or two open scandals which had come before the law courts. He believed if an inquiry were held it would be found that a great deal of money had been absolutely wasted. He did not suppose the noble Lord would order an inquiry to be made, nor did he press for it, for the cost of it would be simply throwing good money after bad.
    He could not, however, end his remarks in this note of criticism. While holding that the Foreign Office was to blame for the financial side of this undertaking, at the same time they had undoubtedly carried out a great and necessary work, and they had carried it out well in the face of immense obstacles. By the construction of this railway they had made the administration of British East Africa and Uganda possible. That would not have been possible otherwise. And they had brought succour and support to that handful of brave and lonely men—the adminis-
    944
    trators and the missionaries of the Uganda Protectorate—who, in the face of great difficulties, surrounded often by serious dangers, and doomed almost inevitably to frequent periods of ill-health, were striving, and striving successfully, to introduce the principles of enlightened government and the teachings of a higher morality into what had been one of the darkest spots of the Dark Continent.
    LORD CRANBORNE: I can forgive the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down for the criticisms which he has made against any details of the expenditure on behalf of the Uganda Railway when I consider the greater part of his speech and the complete answer which he has given to the observations of so many of his hon. friends. [An HON. MEMBER: He agreed with them.] The hon. Member for West Islington said that the district we have to deal with is inhabited by nothing but barbarians.
    MR. LOUGH: That was a joke.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: I do not think anybody laughed at it, though. The hon. Member thinks that the country produces no commodities worthy of the attention of the merchant.
    MR. LOUGH: In merchantable quantity.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down corrected him in both particulars, and explained that the people of Uganda were by no means the nation of pure barbarians which he seemed to think, but that, on the contrary, they were a progressive people with a great future before them, and that the country was fertile, producing many commodities which, in time, we hope, will bring some remuneration for the expenditure to which we have been put.
    The hon. Member for the Cleveland Division made certain criticisms which it will be my duty to meet. He said that when he was travelling in the country he met a number of people who all agreed that there had been a great deal of waste. I do not doubt that in any enterprise of this kind a certain amount of waste must necessarily take place, but I confess I rather distrust the kind of gossip—I do not use the

    945
    word in an offensive sense to the hon. Gentleman—which is picked up from various amateur critics who are not qualified to form an opinion, and to which the traveller, of course, is always subject. I distrust that all the more because some very considerable authorities do not seem to share the hon. Gentleman's opinion in that particular. I quoted on Tuesday the statement of Sir George Goldie. [An Hon. MEMBER: What about Col. Gracey's opinion?] I will deal with Col. Gracey in a moment. I will not repeat the quotation I read from Sir George Goldie, but he definitely says that the charge that the railway has been uneconomically made cannot be sustained. You may not agree with him. You may think that the railway was built on too extensive a scale. You may think that he was over sanguine in his hopes of return for the expenditure, but a man of his enormous experience has an opinion which must be taken into account.
    *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask whether he went over the latter part of the railway, of which I spoke?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: I am not quite able to say.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Is Sir George Goldie a practical engineer?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: I did not say he was, but I do not know that the hon. gentleman is a practical engineer either. I take Sir Harry Johnston. I am not going to repeat the quotation I gave from him the other day, but he certainly says that he thinks the appointment of Sir Guilford Molesworth and his assistants was thoroughly justified by the results which have been produced. Col. Gracey's report, to which so much attention has been called, and very properly called, does not express the view which the hon. Gentleman seems to think. If hon. Members will look at page 7 of the Report they will find a long paragraph in which he points out the immense difficulties that must necessarily belong to an enterprise of this kind. Then he goes on to say—
    "I have mentioned all this lest it should be thought, from rny criticism of certain minor details, I have been unable to appreciate the excellent work that has been carried out by the staff of the Uganda Railway."
    946
    So that he does not by any means condemn the staff of the railway, root and branch, as might be supposed from some of the observations that have been made. On the contrary, he takes the view that, considering the immense difficulties which confronted them, on the whole the work which they put out is excellent [AN HON. MEMBER: He does not say that.] The hon. Member for the Cleveland division said there had been a great waste of money. A passage was pointed to in Col. Gracey's report in which he criticised the rope incline. It is abundantly true of engineers, as it is true of other men, that there are among them many different opinions, and there will be. Even within the covers of this Blue-book, hon. Members will see that the opinion given by Col. Gracey is by no means shared by others. If they turn to page 52 of this Blue-book, they will find a paragraph in which the opinion of Sir Guilford Molesworth is cited. If they look at the middle of the quotation they will see these words—
    "It will be necessary, in order to insure rapid progress of the railhead, to make use of a temporary rope incline, by which the permanent way materials may be lowered pending the completion of the work on the permanent line."
    What the writer of this memorandum says in the next paragraphs—i.e., that a year has been saved in the operation of carrying the rails through to the Lake, is a proof of the soundness of the decision arrived at. That is really the answer to the hon. Gentleman. The longer the line takes to make the longer will it be necessary to pay for the coolie labour imported from India. It is therefore important to get the work done as soon as possible.
    *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Is it economical to make two lines instead of one?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: I prefer to trust the opinion of those competent engineers, rather than that of the hon. Gentleman, whose opinion after all must be that of an amateur.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: Whose opinion is that?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: It is the opinion of Sir Guilford Molesworth, and

    947
    if the hon Member for Swansea will look at page 62, he will see what is stated by him. Sir Guilford Molesworth approved of the decision of the Uganda Railway Committee to adopt the device of the rope incline. He stated that it would be necessary, in order to secure rapid progress to the rail-head, to make use of a temporary rope-incline, and by this means a year had been saved in carrying through the undertaking. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
    The right hon. Member for South Aberdeen has criticised the various reasons I put forward for the Estimate of 1900. I will not weary the House by repeating what I said the year before last, but let me make this observation. The right hon. Gentleman says, how absurd it is to talk of the weather being exceptional. I would ask, is not the weather in Uganda, always exceptional? No doubt the weather is perpetually surprising; but, at the same time, I think it must be admitted that the weather is sometimes worse than at other times. The right hon. Gentleman may deny that, but there can be no doubt that the weather that year was exceedingly bad. The more experience we have of the weather in Uganda, the more entitled we are to speak with confidence that the weather was exceptional at a period when the railway was at a critical stage; and it did make an enormous difference in the cost of the construction of the railway. In England, if navvies cannot be employed owing to the bad weather, they are discharged. That course, however, cannot be followed in Uganda. The coolies employed on the railways are imported from India, and they have to be paid whether they work or do not work. When the weather is so bad that no work can be done, the cost thrown on those who are making the railways is very great indeed. The right hon. Gentleman, and others, have put the questions, "Why did the Foreign Office hurry on the railway?" "Why did they not wait for the complete survey of the line?" It is perfectly true that they did hurry on the railway, and did not wait for a complete survey; but everyone who has taken an interest in this question knows that there was a
    948
    political necessity for hurrying on. I would remind the House that there were at least two other Powers competing with Great Britain for the possession of Uganda, and it must be evident to all that the sooner we established control and our authority over that territory the better it would be for our sovereignty.
    *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: That was settled before the railway was begun.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: The mere paper acquisition of a vast territory in East Africa was not sufficient; and the sooner it could be developed the better. Besides, any one who recognises the importance of having ready access to the higher waters of the Nile, in view of our Imperial position in Egypt, will acknowledge how necessary it was to have the railway rapidly completed. It was for that very reason that the Foreign Office did not wait for the survey, as they would have done under normal circumstances; and that it was which induced the Government also to take the work in hand themselves instead of employing a contractor. I ventured to say on Tuesday, and I repeat it this afternoon, that the fact that the estimate was originally too low does not mean necessarily that too much money has been spent in the end. Assuming that every estimate was exceeded, the question is not whether the estimates were good or bad, but whether too much money has been spent. The Uganda railway has been by no means so expensive as the Cape line and the Natal line. The Cape line cost pounds;10,000 per mile, and the Natal line pounds;13,000 per mile, while the Uganda line only cost pounds;9,500 per mile. The hon. Member for West Islington, who was very eloquent on the working expenses of the railway, has got hold of a mare's nest. The hon. Gentleman referred to the table on page 4 of the Memorandum, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman understood it. The figure he took was pounds;378,000 as the working expenses of the line in 1901, and he asked how that money was to be defrayed. It will be defrayed out of the very grant which the House is now being asked to vote. It is in its bulk part of the capital expenditure on the railway.
    MR. LOUGH: Why is it called "Working expenditure"?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: It represents, in it its major part, the cost of bringing material up from the coast to rail head; and if the hon. Gentleman will read carefully the recent account of how this excessive expenditure arose, he will see that in almost every item a large part of the excess is due to what it cost to take the material from the coast to rail head. The traffic earnings amounted to pounds;80,000 last year. With regard to the working expenses, it is calculated that the net loss will be pounds;78,000 a year. But, of course, as the Protectorate develops, and trade and commerce increase, we have no doubt that the margin of loss will be a gradually diminishing quantity.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid there was a great ambiguity about the tables. The difficulty was that no distinction was drawn between the cost of carriage of railway stores and the cost of carriage of Protectorate stores.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: The first table excludes the carriage of Protectorate stores and railway construction stores; while the second table includes the carriage of Protectorate stores, but excludes the carriage of railway stores. The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me to explain in the cost of the earthworks. Well, in the first place there was an under estimate, because of the want of a detailed survey, of which I have already spoken; and, in the second place, the bad weather, which stopped progress, was responsible for almost half of the cost. The cost of the bad weather per unit involved an under-estimate of 20 per cent, on the earth-works alone. The hon. Gentleman referred also to the permanent way. As regards that, the rise in the prices of material and freight from England accounted for pounds;16,000; the replacement of wooden sleepers by steel sleepers over the first eighty miles, pounds;17,000; and the rise in the price of coal and in the cost of carriage from the coast, pounds;35,000. There was also a small increase in the length of deviations, and a certain under-estimate of the cost of taking up deviations, making a total excess of £73,000.
    950
    In conclusion I will only say that I am perfectly confident that in any work of the kind blunders would necessarily be made; and I will go so far to admit that the probability is that there would be a certain amount of waste involved. That is not new to the House of Commons. Let the House consider, for instance, the Manchester Ship Canal. I used to be a Lancashire Member. And I know a great deal about it. Why, the under-estimate for the Uganda Railway is incomparable with the under-estimate for the Manchester Ship Canal. It is our universal experience, whether in our public or private capacity, that engineering works are always under-estimating. On the contrary, I much regretted it; but as I explained on Tuesday, although there were circumstances over which the Government or the engineers had had no control which were responsible for a large part of the excess, yet, I do think that the under-estimate in certain important particulars cannot be defended in that way. Mistakes were undoubtedly made, and on behalf of the Government I regret them. I hope the House, after listening to the eloquent defence of this enterprise by the hon. Member for the Cleveland Division, will be good enough to grant the money we now asked for, and enable the Bill to be introduced.
    (4.35): THE MASTER OF ELIBANK ()said he wished to make it quite clear that the original cost of the Cape and Natal Railways was pounds;7,000 per mile, and that if the noble Lord mentioned pounds;13,000 a mile the margin must have been spread over the several years since the line was constructed. On the same calculation, the cost of the Uganda line would amount to pounds;18,000 or pounds;19,000 per mile. He had always been in favour of the Uganda Railway. He thought when they annexed large provinces in Africa, in any shape or form, the sooner they joined point to point, as the Russians did in the East, the better. When he was in Rhodesia ten or eleven years ago he considered that the country was a barren and use less acquisition. Now it had 1,400 miles

    951
    of railway, along which townships had sprung up; and in Fort Salisbury there was a population of some 2,000 white men. Personally, he would never hesitate to vote money for the construction of a railway in any province that might be annexed. For instance, he was in Khartoum this year. What was the result of the railway? Why, in the bazaars of Omdurman, Birmingham and Manchester goods were being sold. Though he believed the railway would pay in course of time, he thought it was open to legitimate criticism that the expenditure on the Uganda Railway was so heavy and extravagant. That made it very difficult for them on that side to support their votes before their constituents; but if a division were taken he intended to support the Government.
    MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE ()said the noble Lord had not met the gravamen of the charge against the Government, and had made no case whatever against the excessive expenditure on the Uganda Railway. From 1892 to 1895 he did what he could, in a humble way, to try to press on the Liberal Government of the day the necessity of proceeding with the railway, on the ground that the French were endeavouring to secure an interest in Uganda which ought to be secured for the Empire. The Germans were then entering into an arrangement to construct a railway from their sphere of influence, and he thought it advisable that the Government should also construct a railway in their sphere of influence. The railway was advocated mainly on humanitarian considerations. The district between the coast and Uganda was alive with slave caravans, and the construction of the railway had prevented enormous mortality. Not only did it destroy the slave trade in the interior, but it saved a vast amount of life in connection with the transit of commodities from the coast. It used to take between two and three years for transit from Mombasa and back. Natives had to carry 70 Ibs. on their heads over the 1,200 miles there and back; and only one in eight returned alive to the coast. It was to the credit of the Empire that it faced that situation, and acknowledged its responsibility.
    952
    When Africa was apportioned they took upon themselves certain responsibilities towards the natives, and the railway was the result. As regarded the question of expenditure, it seemed to him absurd for the noble Lord to contend that there was any justification for pressing on the railway in recent years; and nothing that the noble Lord had said justified the excessive expenditure which they condemned. There was an allusion in the memorandum to pounds;379,000 as being the gross working expenditure. To the ordinary individual that would appear to be a most extravagant expenditure, taking into consideration that there was only one passenger train a week from the coast to the Lakes, and only two passenger trains to Nairobi. That appeared to him to be a matter which required looking into. The officials no doubt desired to have as much money as possible to spend; but the House of Commons was the trustee for the British taxpayer, and should see that there was no extravagant expenditure. They thought that the Government was responsible for a good deal of the extravagance that had occurred; and they denounced it, though many of them agreed as to the desirability of constructing the railway.
    (4.43.) MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the noble Lord was not to blame personally, nor was he responsible departmentally, for the sad and lamentable revelations made on the Opposition side of the House, which were supported by quotations from various reports, and strikingly confirmed by the only hon. Member who had happened to pay a flying visit to the country. But the noble Lord was politically responsible for the pounds;600,000 the House was going to vote. He was responsible for the many blunders he had himself admitted to have taken place, and he would be responsible for many more unless he was prepared to boldly face the situation revealed in the discussion and to set his house in order, and either bring home or dismiss any official who in the future carried on the administration of the Protectorate in the same wasteful, extravagant, and unbusinesslike way. If the noble Lord had couched the whole of his speech as he did

    953
    the concluding sentences of it, he would have been perfectly content; but while the noble Lord admitted blunders, and admitted waste, which he curiously said was not new to the House of Commons—
    *LORD CRANBORNEsaid that what he intended to say was that gross under-estimating was not new to the House of Commons.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the noble Lord admitted blunders, waste, and excessive expenditure over estimates; but the country was determined that it should be the duty of every Member of the House of Commons to take greater notice of expenditure, especially in those Parts of the world where criticism was necessary both in the interests of efficiency and economy. The noble Lord expressed some modified regret at the blunders which had taken place, but he had not said a word about the future. He gave no promise of reform, and no suggestion that the experience of the past would induce him to keep a tighter hand on his officers, especially in the dark and outlying places of the earth. The railway was originally intended to cost three millions, and to this date it had cost nearly six. That was an excess of expenditure over the estimate the noble Lord was responsible for now. In the completion and the future administration of the railway, the noble Lord ought to keep to the closest line of the estimates. If he did not promise reform in these matters, what reason had the House to assume that the absence of the sense of responsibility on the part of his officers out in Uganda would not continue in the future? What reason had they to believe that his officers at the outposts would change their course of action, if they knew that Ministers here were prepared to back them up and defend them at all hazards? What guarantee had they that the expenditure would not go on as extravagantly in the future as it had done in the past? He did appeal to the noble Lord to make some promise that, if not this session, next session, when this question came before the House, he would do his very best to see that this railway was economically finished and satisfactorily worked, and that the whole administration would be put on better
    954
    lines. He was intensity amused at the deft way in which the noble Lord tried to balance the hon. Member for the Cleaveland Division and other Members with whom that hon. Member was not agreed, in every particular as to the extravagant and wastefull way in which this railway had been built and the administration was carried on
    *LORD CRANBORNE: Not at all.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he never heard more damaging criticism made about the work of a railway and the conduct of a Protectorate than the hon. Member for Cleveland made, verified as he was by personal observation.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not say anything about the administration of the Protectorate.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he would deal with that later on. This balancing of one set of opinions against another in this House had been tried before. Admitting that there might be some differences of opinion between the hon. Member for Cleveland and some other Members, they were in substantial agreement as to the way in which this railway had been made. The noble Lord was prepared to accept the hon. Member's difference from his colleagues on this side of the House on a small matter, but when it was necessary to throw over the hon. Member in regard to a material particular, he talked about the tales of gossip which were told to travellers. It was perfectly true that the hon. Member for Cleveland must have had tales told to him. But the facts disclosed in the Blue-book showed what the administration of the Protectorate had been, and it should be remembered that it was not the interest of any official to put the worst side out. Very frequently striking defects were covered over by officials with the charity which covers a multitude of sins. He ventured to say that if the noble Lord would look at his own Blue-book, and read, in addition to the views of Sir George Goldie and Sir Guilford Molesworth, the statements contained in the Report of Colonel Gracey, he would be able to correct his own opinion. Above all, if he would read the literature

    955
    published by competent men on the question of opening up South Africa, even Sir Harry Johnston, Sir George Goldie, Sir Guilford Molesworth, and make allowance for the optimism which travellers indulged in, especially when they were of the Stanley type, he would find underlying all this optimism that there was a tragic story to be told with regard to the making of that railway and the present administration thereof. The hon. Member declined to accept Sir George Goldie's view of the situation at all. For years Sir George Goldie was his employer. He had nothing but praise and admiration for him as a gentleman, and he had no fault to find with him as a business man, but he would no more think of taking his opinion on the construction of a railway, the repairing of a ship, the engagement of coolies, the formation of an embankment or an escarpment, or anything of that kind, than he would think of taking the noble Lord's opinion on golf or cricket. The noble Lord would pardon him if he was rather persistent on this particular subject. He happened to know a good many of the men who had been out there. Speaking broadly and generally, they all came to the same conclusion as to the expense of the Uganda railway.
    He entirely endorsed the criticism of the hon. Member for Cleveland, which was confirmed by the Blue-book, as to the cost of the railway. The hon. Member for Cleveland differed from him on the broad principle that induced this country to go to Uganda. He did not intend to discuss that matter at length, but he thought they were all agreed that the real reason that took us to Uganda was that we might get command of the head waters of the Nile. We were anxious to get there to keep France and Germany out, lest they might turn off the tap of the river Nile. If anyone were to make it now that suggestion would be regarded as the most fanciful and idiotic it was possible to make. That was the fatuous reason that took us to Uganda. All the authorities who had been to the head waters of the Nile stated that they were not commanded at all by that district. Distinguished travellers had proved that if they were to be commanded at all it was rather in Abyssinia than in the
    956
    district in which the Uganda railway was extending. If, as he had been told, the object of the annexation was to command the head waters of the Nile, that had turned out a mere fiction. The hon. Member for Cleveland told them that, given annexation, the railway was necessary, but he also stated that the railway was badly made at an extravagant cost. Then with a pleasing, light, and airy touch, such as might be observed in one who gave lantern lectures to his constituents, the hon. Member gave a description of the country. He also told the House that there was on the part of the natives, a desire for flowing garments and umbrellas, and that there was a great demand for soap. The fact that the country was fertile was no reason for building a railway. Acre for acre England was possibly one of the most fertile and productive countries in the world. He would rather spend a million of the country's money on the construction of railways here to help our English farmers than see this country command the head waters of the Nile. If the noble Lord could command these head waters, and provide the natives, who were well-dressed, with flowing garments, umbrellas and soap, did he think that the expenditure of pounds;6,000,000 of money would be justified? He would rather spend that money in solving the Irish problem, and that was just the round sum that would save Ireland next session from the internecine war that had been going on there for centuries. pounds;6,000,000 formed really the outstanding difference between Ireland and this country, and on the question whether that money would be better spent upon people in Africa, who loved flowing robes, umbrellas and soap, or upon people at home, he had made up his mind. The hon. Member for Cleveland said that we went there probably from humanitarian reasons. He said that the people were intelligent and adaptable, that they loved British rule, that the children of the place were flocking to school, and that there were plenty of hospitals. When he listened to this philanthropic sentimentalism he was reminded of the poet's words—
    "I do believe in freedom's cause,
    As far away as Paris is."
    He believed in freedom's cause, and in the saving of the people who were unemployed at this moment, to whom these pounds;6,000,000

    957
    of money would be an inestimable boon. If they wore going to carry out philanthropic humanitarianism where it was most needed, there were women in London and in the slums of other cities who might be rescued from a calling which they pursued for economic reasons. This money which was being spent on the construction of a railway in Uganda would do much to alleviate the sufferings of the poor of this country. The hon. Member for Cleveland had referred to the condition of the town of Nairobi. It was a most scandalous blot on the administration that there should be thousands of labourers living on an absolutely dead level plain, incapable of drainage, and where no end of disease must inevitably take place, while a few European officers were living on the higher ground where they could get better water and climate. What was the reason that these poor labourers had been put on this plain he could not understand. They would have to be moved; and if a reason was wanted why they should be moved, one had only to turn to the reports of the death-rate and the sickness among the labourers, whose conditions of life had been scandalously neglected by the engineers who were responsible for them. There were 2,367 deaths of labourers up to 1901; 6,354 had been invalided and taken back to India in that year; and 12,644 of these poor labourers had been admitted to hospital. This indicated a neglect of sanitary precautions which ought not to be tolerated for one moment longer by the noble Lord who had charge of this particular branch of the Administration.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: The hon. Member ought to give the total number of labourers employed. The death-rate is 11 per 1,000.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid 11 per 1,000 was too much. It was an awful death-rate, and it could have been avoided if proper precautions had been taken. The Reports of our own Foreign Office gave unmistakable evidence of the deadliness of the climate, while the Reports of the German Foreign Office showed that bubonic plague was indigenous to Uganda, and decimated the population. When, therefore, it was said that there was a probability of
    958
    Europeans colonising there, all he could say was that any Englishman who attempted to do so ought to be sent either to a lunatic asylum or to a home for inebriates. He had not criticised this branch of foreign affairs because he thought the reason for going to the Lake could be revised; they could not undo that policy, but they could modify it in important details. Had we not almost enough territory wherewith to occupy our attention, politically, industrially, and commercially? This Uganda policy was a link in the long chain of rash, costly, deadly Imperialism that involved this country in the most costly war of modern times. He believed in Imperialism of the old-fashioned type—the establishment of coast trading stations and commerce extended by winning the confidence of natives by fair dealing. Results should impress the Government with the folly of these schemes for extension of Empire. Unless the Foreign Office was seriously impressed by the criticisms which had been delivered in the light of sound information, this expenditure of these six millions would double, and, finally. the only asset would be two long rusty steel ribbons stretching from Mombasa to Victoria Nyanza abandoned in despair because our policy of universal grab had landed us in trouble nearer home. Our rivals were delighted to encourage us on these mad-cap expeditions, because in them we lost men and wasted money; but some day when we had to wrestle with the beasts in the European Ephesus, weakened in our outposts and dependent on alien troops, we should want the money and men that have been squandered by this Uganda policy.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Lord Cranborne, Mr.Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Deputy Chairman.

    UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
    "To provide further money for the Uganda Railway." Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 308.]

    MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
    Clause 1:—
    *SIR ARTHUR HAYTER ()moved an Amendment providing that for the purpose of forming "a reserve" of the Militia and Yeomanry the Secretary of State might relax or dispense with the provisions of any enactment relating to the training of Militia and Yeomanry as they applied to men in the Reserve divisions. He said that his object was to get rid of the word "divisions," so as to constitute "a reserve" simply. It was difficult to understand what the word "divisions" in the Clause meant.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 5, after 'form,' to insert 'a.'"—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'a' be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that there seemed to be some misunderstanding on this point. It was absolutely necessary to have the word "divisions" in the Bill. There was already a Militia reserve, but as at present constituted it was a reserve of the Army; and if it was stated in the Bill that the object was to form "a reserve" the Committee would come into conflict with the present Militia Act. The provision had been drafted in this way so as not to be confused with the Militia reserve under the Army Act of 1882.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER ()said there was a great deal to be said against the word "divisions," but the difficulty of the Secretary of State would be met by the use of the word "reserves" instead of "reserve." This was an entirely new kind of drafting, and he understood its effect would be that the reserve when formed would be divided into (a) (b) (c) and so on, as was the Army Reserve. In that way the very thing which had been condemned would
    960
    be retained. It made one suspect that the War Office desired to do something other than was openly stated.
    COLONEL SANDYS ()wanted an assurance that the Militia reserve would not be taken from the ranks of the combatant battalions. The term "reserve" was practically a misnomer as applied to our Army, because we had not a reserve in the real sense of forming a second line of defence. We had a number of men who went on furlough from the ranks of the combatant battalions, and these men deteriorated every year, and had to be re-trained for any practical military purpose in time of war. The only way out of the difficulty was to go back to the long service system. A large reserve was contrary to the feeling both of the civil and military sections of the country. He was, however, particularly anxious that nothing should be done under the term "reserve" by which the efficiency of the battalion would be impaired.
    MR. PIRIE ()said there was a great deal of ambiguity about the Bill, and the Committee ought not to give to the Secretary of State more than was absolutely necessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERmoved an Amendment to make the Clause deal with the formation of "reserves" instead of "reserve divisions" of Militia and Yeomanry. The Amendment was, he thought, perfectly harmless, so far as the Secretary of State was concerned, but it would get rid of the word "divisions" of which they were rather afraid.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words 'reserve divisions,' and insert the word 'reserves.'"—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. BRODRICKsaid it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. It was needful to draw a distinction between the new reserve, which would be a real Militia reserve,

    961
    and the existing Militia reserve, which was in the nature of an Army reserve. According to legal advice, the word "divisions" was necessary.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he could not withdraw the Amendment. Now that the Secretary of State had given the authority on which he relied, he (the hon. Member) felt more convinced than ever that he was right in the view he took.
    *COLONEL LEGGE ()asked for an explanation of the word "division" in the Bill. "Division" was a military term, and a "division" in the Army was composed of two or more brigades.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid it was absolutely necessary to retain the word. "Section" also was a military term. Words with a military significance were frequently used in their ordinary sense in Acts of Parliament, and everybody knew what a division was as between one class of individuals and another.
    MR. PIRIEpointed out that the word "reserves" would not stand alone, but
    that the Clause would read "reserves of the Militia and Yeomanry."
    MR. CALDWELL ()failed to see why the word "divisions" was needed, because the Secretary of State had taken power to set a side any enactment with regard to the training of the Militia. He could split the force up into brigades, sections, or divisions, just as he liked. Why, therefore, should he limit himself by this Clause, when he was unrestricted by Act of Parliament?
    COLONEL BLUNDELL ()said that the old Militia,'reserve which was liable to serve abroad was gradually dying out. While it was dying out this particular word was intended, as he understood the meaning of it, to distinguish between the present Militia reserve and that moribund Militia reserve.
    MR. BRODRICK: It is solely to distinguish them.
    (5.30.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 34. (Division List No. 632.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lawson, John Grant

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dimsdale. Rt.Hon. Sir JosephC.

    Lecky, Rt.Hon.WilliamEdw.H.

    Allhusen,AugustusH'nryEden

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Anson. Sir William Reynell

    Dixon-Hartland,SirFredDixon

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Doulgas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

    Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Durning-Lawrence,Sir Edwin

    Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.

    Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John

    Egerton,Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Elliot,Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fergusson, Rt.Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r

    Macdona,John Cumming

    Balfour.RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    M'Arthur, Charles(Liverpool)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Fisher, William Hayes

    More,Robt,Jasper(Shropshire)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Murray, RtHn. A. Graham (Bute

    Bond, Edward

    Flower, Ernest

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Forster, Henry William

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Bousfield, William Rubert

    Gardner, Ernest

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

    Gibbs,HnA.G.H.(CityofLond.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Gibbs,Hon.Vicary(St.Albans)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Gore,Hon.S.F.Ormsby(Line.)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Chamberlain, RtHn J.A. (Worc.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Rigg, Richard

    Chapman, Edward

    Greene,HenryD.(Shrewsbury)

    Ritchie, Rt.Hon.Chas.Thomson

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x

    Rolleston, Sir John F.L.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Sackville, Col. S.G.Stopford-

    Collings. Rt.Hon. Jesse

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Hozier,Hon.James HenryCecil

    Saunderson, Rt.Hn. Col.Edw.J.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Kemp, George

    Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(IsleofWight

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kenyon,Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Kimber, Henry

    Spear, John Ward

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lawrence,SirJoseph(Monm'th

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Wilson, A. Stanley(york, E. R.)

    Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Walrond, Rt.Hn. SirWilliamH.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    NOES.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

    Burns, John

    Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Burt, Thomas

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Thomas, David alfred (Merthyr

    Calflwell, James

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Thomas, F Freeman-(Hastings)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Tully, Jasper

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wallace, Robert

    Crombie, John William

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Shackleton, David James

    Fenwick, Charles

    Shaw, Charles Edw (Stafford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Mr. Warner and Colonel Sandys.

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John Soames, Arthur Wellesley
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERand moved to omit from the Clause the word "regulations" and insert "by Order in Council," the explanation being that the Bill gave the Secretary of State power by his own regulation to alter an Act of Parliament, whereas he held that that ought only to be done by Order in Council. There was great objection to allowing the Secretary of State by simple Regulation to alter an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the procedure by Order in Council as rather cumbrous, but he did not hear anything from him to show that the power which the Clause was to confer could not be obtained equally well by Order in Council.
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 1, line 7, to leave out the word ' regulations' and insert the words ' by Order in Council.'"—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)
    Question proposed, "That the word ' regulations ' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. CALDWELLhoped that the Secretary of State for 'War would be able to accept the Amendment. It was practically conceded that he should have the power proposed to bo given by the Clause, and it was a mere matter of machinery how it was to be given. It was unusual to give the Secretary of one of the Departments power to set aside any enactment. Such a proceeding should only take place on the corporate responsibility of the Cabinet, and the constitutional method of carrying it into effect was by Order in Council.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill had
    964
    been before the House for some weeks, but the Amendment had been sprung upon him at a moment's notice. The words "Secretary of State" already stood part of the Clause, and consequently it was impossible to put in "by Order in Council." The Militia Act was full of instances in which the Secretary of State made regulations in pursuance of certain sections of the Militia Act. All the Secretary of State could do under this Bill was to make regulations relaxing or dispensing with any enactments relating to the training of the Militia. It was desirable that that should be done by Regulation, and not by Order in Council. He trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, if the Amendment could not be accepted, the right hon. Gentleman would promise to look into the matter and make a statement on the Report stage. Whatever was to be done in the way of forming reserve divisions of the Militia, it would have to be done bv classes, and these different classes would have to be dealt with in different ways. He thought that the Regulations could be made just as well by an Order in Council as by the War Office.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PIRIEsaid he wished to move as an Amendment to leave out the words "any enactment relating to the training of Militia and Yeomanry," in order to insert "the enactments specified in the schedule of this Act." His

    965
    object was to make the Bill less vague. As it stood, the Clause gave an unlimited power to the Secretary for War of doing a way withe the funcion and privileges of this House. His Amendment would rectify that, by compelling the right hon. Gentleman to specify definitely the enactment which he proposed to curtail by the Bill. The Bill had been drawn in an extraordinarily slovenly way.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'any enactment relationg to the training of Militia and Yeomanry,' in order to insert the words ' the enactments specified in the schedule of theis Act.'"—(Mr. Pirie.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. BRODRICKsaid he could not accept the Amendment, as the only enactments affected were enactments relating to the period and the method of training, and there was no necessity to set out their titles in the schedule.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that the powers for which the Secretary for War was seeking should not extend to future Acts of Parliament. He therefore suggested the insertion, after the world "enactment." of the words "any existing Act of Parliament."
    MR. PIRIEsaid he would withdraw his Amendment, and move that suggested by the hon. Member for MidLanark.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid he had no objection to the insertion of these words.
    MR. PIRIE'SAmendment was, by leave, withdrawn, and the words suggested by MR. CALDWELL were inserted.
    MR. PIRIEmoved to leave out from "and", in line 9, to the end of the Clause. He moved this Amendment in order to bring back the Bill to what was the original intention of the Secretary for War at the beginning of the session, when that right hon. Gentleman stated that he wished to create a Militia
    966
    Reserve. He contended that the Committee was quite unable to discuss a measure of this far-reaching description without further information being given to them. He had already complained of the refusal of the Secretary for War to give any information in regard to the strength of the First and Second Army Corps, and the reasons put forward by that information were childish in the extreme.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid he not see how the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were applicable to the Amendment which he had proposed.
    MR. PIRIEsaid he had ventured to make the remark because they had scarcely been able to discuss military matters this session. He would not, however, pursue the point. The powers proposed to be given by the Clause as it stood would constitute a complete revolution of the old constitutional force of the Militia, and would most seriously interfere with the recruiting. As regarded the Yeomanry, this was a proposition on which the committee had no information whatever. He hoped that the Secretary for War would agree to postpone his demand for these fresh powers until next session, when the House and the country would be more fully aware of the full effect of what the right hon. Gentleman actually proposed.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words from the word 'and,' to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Pirie.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'any man in' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. BRODRICKsaid that he had not the slightest desire to transfer men from one regiment to another, unless it was absolutely necessary in the interest of the public service. But there would be a number of men who had served in various Line battalions who would be eligible to serve in the Militia Reserve in case it was called out, that one battalion might contain 2, 000 men, and another only 600 men, and all

    967
    that was contemplated by the Clause was to enable the military authorities to bring up the deficient battalion to its proper strength by transferring to it men from the over-manned battalion. The military authorities must have the power, on occasions of emergency, of placing men where they were most needed. In the case of the Yeomanry regiments, which were also very unequal, the enrolment of these men would remain with the commanding officer. He did not think that any patriotic officer would complain if, in a moment of national emergency, a hundred men were transferred from his regiment to another which was a hundred men short.
    MR. FULLER ()asked if the right hon. Gentleman was to be understood as saying that the enrolment of the Yeomanry Reserve was to be left entirely to the discretion of the commanding officer. If that were so, he had nothing more to say. But if there was to be an enrolment of the Reserve, the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the Committee what the Reserve was for, what it was to do, whether it was to go out, and, if so, fur how long, for annual training, and if it was or was not to receive pay. Generally, the Committee ought to be given fuller information as to the objects of the right hon. Gentleman.
    COLONEL SANDYSsaid it appeared to him rather a painful sort of thing to remove a man from one regiment to another. Nothing could be more unsettling.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid that that would only be done in cases of emergency.
    COLONEL SANDYSsaid that, in that case, his criticism fell to the ground. He did not, however, think that any system which contemplated the transference of men from one regiment to another, whether in the Militia or the Yeomanry. as a permanent part of the administration of the army, would commend itself to experienced soldiers. He hoped, therefore, the matter would be further considered before it was finally adopted. He was glad to have heard what the Secretary of State said with reference to
    968
    the Reserve. He had always held that one of the great necessities of the military system was that every regiment should have its Reserve battalion, both of officers and men, regularly constituted and trained at stated periods; and he was glad that the Secretary of State had adumbrated such a very desirable military reform. If a regiment were 2,000 strong it might be divided; but the point they should keep before their minds was that men and officers who had served together with the same regiment, who were known to each other, and who trusted each other, should not be separated and sent to other regiments, but should be kept together.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that the Secretary of State had made a most able statement as to the advisability of keeping the battalions in fairly equal numbers, but the Clause before the Committee would not do that in the least. It was only a Clause to make the Reserve battalions equal as regarded numbers. Men would not go into a strange regiment in the Reserve any more than they would go into a strange regiment with the colours. A man would know the officers and the non-commissioned officers with whom ho had served with the colours, and would wish to go into the Reserve battalion belonging to that regiment. The Clause would give the Secretary of State power to transfer men whether they liked it or not; but the right hon. Gentleman stated that the colonels would have power to refuse to enlist those men in the Yeomanry. That was quite a new thing; and he was glad to have heard the Secretary of State put it forward; but he himself heard only the other day from the commander of a Yeomanry regiment that he had no power to refuse man, as long as the regiment was below strength. Was there to be a fixed standard for the Reserve, and, if so, would the regiments be compelled to take men when they were below the standard? The regiments would have to be filled, and if the colonel could not get the men he wanted, would he be compelled to take the men that were sent to him.
    MR. BRODRICKwas understood to dissent.
    MR. COURTNEY WARNERsaid he was very glad to hear that. He thought, however, that the Clause might be postponed until the Yeomanry part of the Bill was introduced next Session. They did not want to transfer men from one regiment to a notlier against their will; though, of course, if men consented no difficulty would arise. If they compelled men, however, Yeomanry and Militia regiments would lose their esprit de corps, which was the very thing which held them together, and which should not be destroyed because of some imaginary danger.
    COLONEL LEGGEsaid he was a very strong advocate of the regimental system, but he did not think there was any reason why, if the exigencies of the service required it, men should not be transferred from one regiment to another. But he would like to press on his right hon. friend that this liability should be clearly explained to the men when they enlisted.
    MR. BRODRICK: Hear, hear !
    MR. PIRIEsaid that there was no plea of urgency as regarded the Bill, and if there were, it was a plea damaging to the Government. The Bill would not have
    been introduced at all were it not for the prolonged debates on the Education Bill. The real reason for the Bill was the fact that the centres of population had shifted, which accounted for the enormous discrepancy in the numbers of the Militia battalions. A great scheme of Imperial defence would be introduced in a few months, arid he strongly urged the postponement of the matter until then.
    MR. FULLERasked whether he was right in understanding that the Yeomanry Reserve was to be raised at the option of the Yeomanry colonels.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid Yeomanry colonels would have the option of accepting men for the Reserve or refusing them if thev did not consider them eligible. It was likely that some of the men who had served in South Africa would come forward for the Yeomanry Reserve, and it was his desire to obtain their services in case of mobilisation for the weaker regiments.
    (6.15.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 41. (Division List, No. 633.)

    AYES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Higginbottom, S. W.

    Allhusen,AugustusH'nryEden

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Hope, J. F. (sheffield, Brightside

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh ().

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Atkinson, Et. Hon. John

    Dimsdale, Rt Hon. Sir Joseph C.

    Kimber, Henry

    Biailey, James (Walworth)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawrence, Sir joseph (Monmith)

    Balearres, Lord

    Egertor, Hon, A. de Tatton

    Lawson, John Grant

    Balfour, Rt.Hon. A.J.(Manch'r

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

    Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W (Leeds

    Faber, George denison (York)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Bignold, Arthur

    Fergusson, RtHn. Sir J. (Manc'r

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Finlay, sir Robert Bannatyne

    Long, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Bond, Edward

    Fisher, william Hayes

    Long, Rt. Hu. Walter (Bristol, S.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Bousfield, william Robert

    Flower, Ernest

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Brodirick, Rt.Hon. St. John

    Forster, Henry William

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Gardner, Ernest

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Gibbs, Hn A. G. H (city of Lond.

    Milvain, Thomas

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Chamberlayne, T. (Sthampton

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Chapmen, Edward

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F.

    Percy, earl

    Collings, Rt.Hon. Jesse

    Hambro, Charles Erie

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Hamilton, RtHn Lord G (Midd'x

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylrbone, W.)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight`Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

    Raseh, Major Frederic Carne

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E. R. (Bath)

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Spear, John Ward

    Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Ritehe, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George

    Robertson, Herbet (Hackney)

    Tomilnson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Robertson, Sir John F. L.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Fellowes.

    Sackville, Col. S.G. Stopford-

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Valentia, Viscount

    NOES.

    Allen Charles P. (Gloue., Stroud

    Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Atherley. Jones, L.

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Brigg, John

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Wallace, Robert

    Bryee, Rt.Hon. James

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Burns, John

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

    Wason,Eugene (Clackmannan

    Burt, Thomas

    Rigg, Richard

    Weir, James Galloway

    Caldwell, James

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Causton, Tichard Knight

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles

    Schwann, charles E.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Shackleton, David James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Mr. Pirie and Colonel Sandys.

    Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Mr. Pirie and Colonel Sandys.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Sandys.

    Grant, Corrie

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants)

    MAJOR RASCH (), on behalf of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton, moved tha Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 12, after 'Militiamen,' to insert 'or Yeomen.' "—(Major Rasch.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 14, after 'arm,' to insert—'(2) All regulations made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as practicabnle after they are made if he not sitting, as soon as parcticabloe after the beginning of the next Session of Parliament.' "—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. BRODRICK: In accordance with the pledge given I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 18, to leave out sub-Section (3)."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered Tommorrow.

    OSBORNE ESTATE (RECOMMITTED) BILL
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
    Clause 1:—
    MR. CALDWELLsaid he would not move the first Amendment standing in his name, as he thought the discussion he desired to raise could be raised on the second Amendment. as the House was aware, the Osborne estate belonged to her late Majesty as a private estate, and such estates were held in the same manner as if they were private estates of any subject of the realm, and her Majesty paid the rates and taxes on Osborne

    973
    like any private individual, so that in considering this subject the question of Royalty was eliminated. Any precedent established by this Bill would have enormous force in subsequent dealings by Act of Parliament with regard to the disposition of the property of private individuals. By the will of her late Majesty Osborne estate was left in life-rent to the King. The life-rent interest afterwards went to the Prince of Wales, and the tenants in tail were the children of the Prince of Wales. They could deal with the life-rent interest of the King and of the Prince of Wales by consent. But there arose the question of the tenant in tail. He was the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and obviously was not of an age to give consent. The King's interest was a life interest, and His Majesty had no power to settle the interest of the tenants in tail under this Bill. The life interest of His Majesty was all that ought to be pressed in a matter of this kind, and the King had a perfect right to dispose of his interest as he thought fit. He did not object to the country saddling itself with the obligation to carry out the wish of the King and to pay £3,000 or £5,000 a year in doing so; but he objected to the Government giving anything to the King that did not belong to His Majesty in full right of property. It might be urged that the Prince of Wales had given his consent. The country had always been very jealous in regard to consents where persons were under any supposed influence, and the Prince of Wales was practically under the influence of the King to such an extent that it would be impossible, even supposing that he wished it, for him to withhold his consent to the King's wish. If His Royal Highness did not do so, his position would be an intolerable one; and, therefore, ho could not look upon the consent of the Prince of Wales as a matter of full and free consent which should operate in a transaction of this kind. He thought that the Bill went too far, and that it would establish two unfortunate principles. In the first place, it would overturn the will of the late Queen Victoria, and within two years of her death it would upset the arrangement that Osborne should remain one of the private estates of the Crown. A great deal had been heard in recent
    974
    debates about the sanetity of the Will of the founder. But here they were setting aside the will of the founder by Act of Parliament within two years and without any change of circumstances. Parliament was asked to pass a Bill to confiscate the rights of the tenants in tail without compensation; and if it could do this, it could as easily take away the rights of the tenants in tail of every Member of the House of Lords without compensation. It was really a very serious matter, and might form a precedent for dealing with the rights of private individuals.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page I. line24, after 'shall' to insert 'during His Majesty's life.' "—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Question proposed, ''That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OK THK EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCIHE,)said he was astonished that if there was any foundation in the arguments of the hon. Member he was so scantily supported by his friends on the Benches opposite. He did not think that the hon. Member was correct in sayingthat there was any chance of this Bill forming a precedent with reference to the disposal of private property. The hon. Member had expressed various beliefs as to the late Queen's wishes. He did not feel that he was in a position to enter into that question. He was certain, however, that Her Majesty the late Queen would have desired no better scheme for the occupation of this estate than that which was proposed in this Bill, bearing in mind her strong feelings for her Army and Navy. So far from Osborne being a "white elephant," the country had good reason to be deeply grateful to His Majesty for the consideration which bad led him to make such a magnificent gift to (he nation. Osborne was an estate of very great value, and still greater prospective value. Of course, the hon. Member would hold that that fact only strengthened his argument, but all he could say was that if the Amendment were carried it would mean the end of the Bill. It would be impossible to ask the nation to make the necessary expenditure of money

    975
    if the gift was to be limited to His Majesty's lifetime, and that was the light in which His Majesty regarded the matter. It was quite true that they were taking away the right of the young Prince in the estate, but the King felt, and the House would feel, that to make this a real gift it was essential that all interests should be dealt with. Of course, the young Prince's interest was a remote one; if he were of age his consent would no doubt have been asked and no doubt given. It was acknowledged that they were taking away from an infanta right he now possessed; but that was a necessary part of the scheme, and, that being so, he was satisfied that the Committee would not consent to accept the Amendment.
    MR. CALDWELLcontended that this was a "white elephant" so far as the King's life was concerned. As to its great prospective value, that belonged, not to the King but to the tenants in tail, and that showed how serious was the principle involved.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. CALDWELLmoved certain alterations in the phraseology of sub-Section 4, the effect of which, he explained, would be that Osborne House, so far as it had been in the personal occupation of Her late Majesty, would be open to the public, and to limit the trust in favour of officers of the services to the rest of the house, and only such portion of the grounds as might, from time to time, be reserved for them by the Commissioners.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 19, after 'Majesty' to insert ' as also the grounds under their management.' "—(Mr. Caldwdl.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)said it was impossible to accept the
    976
    Amendment, as it would completely alter the scheme of the Bill. The public would have such use of the grounds as the Commissioners of Works might think it proper to give under the general powers of management conferred on them by the Acts of Parliament under which they operate, but to say that the grounds would be kept exclusively for a particular purpose, and not to allow any discretion to the Commissioners, would be to render the working of the Bill absolutely impossible. It would be entirely for the Board of Works to make such rules and regulations as might be necessary for convenience in carrying out the whole scope of the Bill, and that was a matter which might safely be left to their discretion.
    MR. CALDWELLadmitted that the Amendment, as drafted, was rather wide, but he hoped the Solicitor General would look into the Clause which, according to its present construction, created a trust. The Commissioners would have power to make rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out sub-Section 4, but they would have no power whatever to make rules and regulations to give the publicaccessto the rest of thegrounds. He thought some form of words should be introduced to make the meaning of the Clause clear.
    Amendment negatived.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time Tomorrow.

    GREENWICH HOSPITAL
    Resolved, "That the Statement of the estimated expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundat on for the year 1902-3 be approved."—(Mr. Pretyman.)
    Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
    Adjourned at ten minutes after Seven o'clock.

Preamble
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Report of the Department Committee appointed to inquire into the present system of reporting industrial accidents.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)
Appendix (Section 1) to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1901.
NORTH SEA FISHERY INVESTIGATIONS NORTH SEA FISHERY INVESTIGATIONS. Reports of the British delegates attending the International Conferences held at Stockholm,Christiana, and Copenhagen with respect to fishery and hydrographical investigations in the North Sea, and correspondence relating thereto.

ICHTHYOLOGICAL RESEARCH.
Report of the Committee appointed to inquire and report as to the best means by which the State or local authorities can assist scientific research as applied to problems affecting the fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland; together with Minutes of evidence, appendix, and index.
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894-96.
Six orders relating to the landing in Great Britain of animals from the steamships "Kansas," "Irishman," "Victorian," "Cambrian," "Californian," and "Sylvania"; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Third Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next. (No. 194.)
EXPIRING, LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
House again in Committee (according to Order).
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid the object of the new Clause he now proposed to move was not a novel one, and he would therefore refer to it as briefly as he could, consistently with lucidity. It might be said that this Clause was not germane to the object of the Bill. That was a contention which he would venture to traverse before proceeding to explain the objects of the Clause. He would humbly submit that this new Clause was germane to the Bill, for the reason that the Bill dealt not only with educational matters and the teaching of the children in the schools, but it also embodied many regulations with regard to the management of these structures and the employment of these buildings in any manner in which they could be used for any purpose. He might mention incidentally that he thought this new Clause was germane to the Bill because by this Bill for the first time all ratepayers had a direct interest in the schools in which he hoped to persuade their Lordships meetings ought to be permitted to be held. In the past it was admitted, as he would show, by a Conservative Government in 1892, that it was right that meetings should be allowed to be held in schools which were in receipt of a Parliamentary grant, and that being so, the demand surely came with greater force now that the schools were maintained by the ratepayers who were the people who demanded that meetings should be allowed to be held. The subject was a very old one. He had had the honour of bringing it forward seventeen years previously in the other House of Parliament, at a period when the noble Duke opposite was also a Member, and when he (Lord Burghclere) had the pleasure of sitting on the same side with him. He had also brought it forward in 1892, and upon that occasion it was accepted by Mr. Balfour and the Conservative Government of that day. The object of the new Clause was to enable the inhabitants of a district to hold meetings in the school for which they paid. The necessity for it arose in 1885

771
with the introduction of the new Franchise Bill of 1884. Because he would venture to point out that this Clause only affected, or should only affect, schools in rural districts where there was no other building sufficiently commodious to permit of a political meeting being held in it; and it the Clause he now proposed did not meet that condition of things he would be glad to introduce suitable words in it to meet that objection. The object was that in out-of-the-way villages, where there were no other suitable buildings in which candidates might address meetings, they should be able to go down and address meetings in the schools. Before 1884, as ' was well known to noble Lords who had represented county divisions, the electors were fewer, and composed of farmers and others who were able to drive into the market towns to hear the addresses of candidates. In 1884, for the first time, the agricultural labourer, a poor man at the best, was included in the franchise. It was impossible for the agricultural labourer to drive into the market town as the farmers had done, and he certainly thought it was very hard that they should create an electorate of this class and then deny them the opportunity of listening to the politics of the day. Another reason for bringing this proposal forward was this. There was no doubt that these schools had been lent on occasions of this kind, but instances had arisen where the managers had allowed the use of a school to one side and had denied it to the other. There was another reason why it was desirable that the power of giving the use of these schools for meetings should be compulsory rather than permissive. He remembered well, in 1885, when the question of disestablishment was suddenly forced upon the country, and the cry went up that the Church was in danger. At the time of the election, he remembered, in one village, where the clergyman was supreme in the schools, that he allowed one candidate to address a meeting in the school to defend any attacks upon the Church, and when the other candidate came down the rev. gentleman made it a condition of his allowing him to speak in the school that the subject
772
of disestablishment should not be referred to. He ventured to submit that that was hardly a fair way to allow a school to be used for meetings. As he had said, this proposal was accepted in 1892, for the Resolution which he then moved in the House of Commons was practically embodied in this Clause. On that occasion the then Vice-President of the Council, Sir William Hart Dyke, said—
"That the Government must acknowledge that there is a real grievance to meet as regards the supply of places for political meetings. I wish to state, on behalf of the Government, that we are prepared to fully accept the principle embodied in this Resolution."
If the Government in 1892 was prepared to accept the resolution which this Clause practically embodied, at a time when the schools to which the Clause referred were simply in receipt of Parliamentary grants, how much more ready ought the Government of the present day to be to carry out the pledges given by their predecessors of the same political faith, when the use of the schools was wanted by the ratepayers who desired to hold these meetings in item. He had tried to be as brief as possible. He trusted that this Clause, which was a very harmless one, because it related to both sides of politics, and was merely to enable the poor electors to hear both sides of the subject, would receive the acceptance of. their Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 7 to insert the following new Clause: '(l) The managers of a public elementary school not provided by the local education authority, and in the case of schools provided by that authority the local education authority shall permit the use of any room in the school on such occasions as do not interfere with the educational purposes of the school, for the purpose of the support of any candidate at a Parliamentary, municipal, or local election, subject to regulations made by the local education authority. (2) The local education authority shall, as soon as possible, make regulations for the purpose of this section, and the regulations shall be binding on manager and on persons obtaining the use of the school." —(Lord Burghclere.)
EARL NELSONsaid that as a voluntary school manager he had never known so unfair a thing to be done as to allow one side to speak in a school and not the

773
other. He had always insisted in his schools that both sides should be allowed to speak. He quite agreed that it was necessary for the agricultural labourer to be approached, and that it was impossible for him to go to the towns. But these meetings must of necessity take place in the evening, and this Bill was entirely for the education of England. One of the powers which the local governing body possessed under it was the power to use the school for three evenings every week for carrying on education, and if in addition they were to be used for political meetings as well, he did not see how those to whom the unprovided schools belonged would have a chance of using them.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he was quite aware that under the Bill these schools would be taken for three evenings a week for educational purposes, but he would venture to point out to the noble Lord that the Clause applied to schools in the villages of large agricultural constituencies. Take the constituency which he had had the honour to represent. That contained eighty-two villages. With all the desire to give vent to one's oratorical attainments, he would ask the noble Lord whether the demand upon any particular school would be such as to interfere with the educational duties it was necessary to perform there. It would only be used once or twice a year.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess LONDONDERRY)said he would follow the example of the noble Lord who had just sat down, and comment mi this Amendment as briefly as possible. He did not think this was the moment to introduce a Clause such as this. He believed there were provisions in the Ballot Act of 1872 and the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894 which dealt with this question, and therefore, in his opinion, it would not be wise at the present juncture to introduce such a Clause as this. If introduced at all, it should be introduced in a Bill of a separate character. This proposal had been discussed very fully in the House of Commons. The noble Lord might probably say that the debate was
774
confined to the question of unprovided schools, but he did not know that that, on any particular grounds, made it any easier for them, if they wished to do so, to accept this Amendment. The Amendment appiled to all schools. He sympathised with the noble Lord's view, but, as Lord Nelson had pointed out, with perfect justice, at present the schools were taken for three nights for the purposes of education, and if they trespassed still further on their time they would make a great encroachment and take away a great slice of the property of the owners of the schools. He sympathised with the view of the noble Lord that it was somewhat difficult for rural labourers, perhaps, to find opportunities to attend meetings and gather together, unless meetings were conducted in the schools. Speaking as a private individual and as an owner of schools and buildings, he might say he had always placed any buildings he had at the disposal of both political Parties, but that did not justify him in binding a manager to give the use of his schools in that way. He might, therefore, be allowed to hope that the noble Lord would not press this Amendment to a division, as under the present circumstances, and taking into consideration the Acts of Parliament which he had quoted, it would be impossible for their Lordships to accept it.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHexpressed the hope that if his noble friend went to a division he would be supported by noble Lords opposite, because his Clause simply endorsed the practice adopted by the noble Lords to allow members of either Party to make use of the schools. His noble friend opposite had stated that he had always allowed the schools to be used in this way, and he had been in the habit of doing the same, and that being so. why should not this Clause be put in the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I spoke in that sense purely as a private individual, and I said I did not think I was justified in binding a manager to do that which I was in the habit of doing as a private individual.
THE 'EARL OF PORTSMOUTHthought that that would not prevent the noble Lord and others voting for this Amendment as private individuals animated by public spirit. The people who refused to lend their schools were not a large class, but a class of very narrow political opinions. He, when a candidate for Parliament of a large rural constituency, wasrefused the use of a school in one district for the purpose of holding a meeting. What happened then, so far as he was concerned, was that a meeting was held out of doors, at which the clergyman was denounced for his refusal to lend the school in very strong terms, and as a consequence, he (the Earl of Portsmouth) gained a large number of votes which he would not otherwise have secured but for this very intolerant spirit. Surely it was not the desire of this House that that sort of thing should be allowed. Take the case of Wales. In Wales there were as many voluntary schools as board schools. All the rural electors, or a vast majority of them, in Wales were supporters of the Liberal party. The voluntary schools were held by managers or owners who were Conservatives. Public-minded Conservatives like the noble Lord would not think of taking advantage of this state of things, or think of denying the use of the schoolroom to either side, but there were a great many cases where men might be guided by a narrow spirit and do so. To his mind it was a very strong thing to say that the people should not have the use of these schools for political meetings, now that the schools were maintained at the sole cost of the State. His noble friend opposite had condemned his own attitude by saying he spoke as a private individual. Under these circumstances he appealed to their Lordships to say whether it was worth while keeping this grievance alive. He thought this was a justifiable Clause, and he hoped his noble friend would go to a division.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I only wish to add a few words to what has been said from this side of the House. I wish to support most strongly my noble friend who introduced this Amendment. I feel myself that we do not wish to legislate
776
against all owners and managers of these schools, but we wish to illustrate as clearly as possible the principle laid down by the noble Lord last night. With regard to the call for railroad tickets, we know that most people who travel by rail arc willing to show their tickets, but because a certain minority are not, a great deal of inconvenience is caused to those who are. It is just the same thing with regard to these schools. I have known over and over again, for no reason whatever, managers refuse to allow their schools to be used on political grounds, and it is for that reason we wish this Clause to be introduced. It will lead to no confusion because the matter will be regulated by the local education authority, and therefore, I strongly press the Government to think over what my noble friends have said upon this matter, and to agree to this Clause.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: Does the noble Lord who moved this Clause object to add words after the word "shall" to this effect, "If no other suitable place is available "?
LORD BURGHCLERE: I stated in my speech that if my Clause did not cover it, I was willing to add words to do so.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMexpressed the hope that the Government would not assent to this proposal, which was to place in the hands of the local education authority the power to hand over buildings which were used for educational purposes and make them available for political purposes. He thought it was a very bad principle; in his opinion, in the interests of the schools themselves, politics should be kept outside altogether. They had no security that one local education authority would not favour one Party and another education authority would not favour another, and thus they would have Party feeling brought into play in a sphere where it ought not to exist. It would be against the interest of the schools, and against the interests of the children attending them, to have these buildings made available for political purposes, and upon that ground he hoped their Lordships would not assent to the proposal of the noble Lord.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHasked the noble Lord who moved the Clause whether broken windows and other damage incidental to political meetings, which might be done to these buildings, would be paid for by the local authority.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid the local authority, having power to make rules, would necessarily lay it down that the people who hired the school for a particular evening would repair any damage that might be caused.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not wish to trespass any further on the time of your Lordships. I am afraid the noble Duke will not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. I think all the arguments that can be put for and against this Clause has been put before your Lordships, and you now have the unpleasant duty of deciding whether meetings should or should not be allowed of a political character. I do not think this is the time when we should alter this Bill

CONTENTS.

Breadelbane, M.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Bristol, M.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Carrington, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Reay, L.

Northbrook, E.

Burghelere, L.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

Coleridge, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Spencer, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Sudley, L. (E.Arran.)

Stamford, E.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Tweedmouth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Nelson, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

York, L. Abp.

Onslow, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Radnor, E.

Balfour, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Romney, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Northumberland, D.

Selborne, E.

Belper, L.

Wellington, D.

Shaftesbury, E.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

Stanhope, E.

Braye, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Strafford, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ailesbury, M.

Tankerville, E.

Chfford of Chudleigh, L.

Camden, M.

Vane, E.(M. Londonderry.)

Congleton, L.

Hertford, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Winchester, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

De Freyne, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

De Mauley, L.

Abingdon, E.

Halifax, V.

Dormer, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Knustord, V.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Llandaff, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Feversham, E.

Ridley, V.

Erskine, L.

Harrowby, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lauderdale, E.

Ely, L. Bp.

Glenesk, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Lucan, E.

London, L. Bp.

Herries, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Morley, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

in acordance with the views of the noble Lord, and I have called attention to the fact that Acts of Parliament deal at the present moment with this deal at the present moment with this matter; therefore I am afraid I cannot accept it.
LORD BURGHCLEREsubmitted with all deference that as to the object of the Clause being introduced into this Bill. It was perfectly true that under the Ballot Act these rooms could be used for the purposes of election, but not for political meetings. It was not the ract, therefore, that there was any provision in any Act of Parliament which dealt with the object he had in view in proposing this Clause. He was extremely sorry that the noble Duke and the noble Marquess could not accept this Clause, but as it was a matter upon which there was very great feeling he was compelled to go to a division.
On Question, objected to. Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; NotContents, 77.

Lawrence, L.

Seaton, L

Wenlock, L.

Lindley, L.

Shand, L.

Wentworth, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Sherborne, L.

Wimborne, L.

Redesdale, L.

Stanmore, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Robertson, L.

Tredegar, L.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLTCY): Does the noble Lord move his Amendment after this Clause?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The Amendment which stands in my name is practically the same as that to be moved by Lord Lytton on the other side, and I am anxious to save the time of the House, and therefore I do not propose to move my Amendment.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDapologised to their Lordships for not having been in the House to move his Amendment when it was first called. He would not have ventured to ask their indulgence in this matter if it had not been that it was submitted for the consideration of that House. This question had been given notice of in the House of Commons but was never considered, owing, as he understood, to the exigencies of time. He did not know that he had very much to say with regard to the matter, because the Clause seemed to him to be so reasonable as to require no argument. It was a Clause merely for the purpose of giving power to the trustees of the schools to lease the schools to the local authority. If the local authority and the owners could agree together upon such a system as should give the local authority the full power of disposal of the school at certain hours, but should reserve the use of that school to the owners during other hours, it seemed to him that in many cases that would be a very useful provision, and one which would remove much friction and difficulty which might otherwise arise. He did not think it necessary to detain their Lordships longer with regard to this provision, which seemed to him so selfevidently desirable. He should like to know whether the Government accepted it. If they did not he might have to discuss its merits.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause, 'The managers of any school not pro
780
vided by the local education authority may at any time, with the consent of the owners of the school-house, and not with standing any provisions of the trust deed, agree with the local education authority to let the school-house on rent to that authority during such hours and with such reservations as to the giving of religious instruction as may be agreed upon, and thereupon and so long as such agreement shall last the school shall be conducted in accourdance with such agreement, but otherwise be managed and controlled as a school provided by the local education authority.'"—(Duke of Northumberland.)
A NOBLE LORD: Before the noble Duke answers, I wish to ask him whether the arrangement which the noble Duke who last spoke wishes to make cannot now be carried out under the Act of 1870? I know cases where such an arrangement has been carried out with the School Board, and when this act passes the County Council will stand in the same position as the School Board.
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): I am rather surprised that the noble Duke in moving this Amendment, did not, as suggested by the noble Earl opposite, state, in the necessity for this transfer, why the condition laid down eith regard to the voluntary schools in the Act of 1870 does not meet his view and is not sufficient for his purpose. It is perfectly possible now for a voluntary school to be transferred to the education authority upon certain conditions, one of which may be the use by the voluntary managers of the school during certain hours for the purpose of giving religious instruction. The difference which I conceive would be imported by the adoption of this Clause is that the noble Duke would permit an arrangement to be made between the local authorities and the managers which would admit of denominational religious instruction being carried on during school hours. That is to say, a school managed by the local authority under the supervision of the local authority would not be the local authority under the supervision of the local authority would not be subject ot the Cowper-Temple Clause. if I understand rightly that that is the meaning of the noble Duke's Clause, that is a proposal we cannot agree to. The scheme

781
of the Bill is that denominational religious instruction shall continue to be given in i the schools now called voluntary schools as it is at present, and that in all schools which are under the local education authority, the Cowper-Temple Clause shall continue to be in force. That is a principle we cannot depart from. We I believe that any such provision as the noble Duke asks for would lead to religious difficulties with the local education. authority itself.
LORD STANMOREsaid he only desired to interpose for a moment. One reason for the Clause which the noble Duke had moved was this. Considerable doubt had arisen in the minds of a great number of persons interested in denominational schools as to whether, under the present existing law, they would or would not effect such relief as was there contemplated. A certain number of learned lawyers told them that, under the existing law, it was perfectly competent for such arrangements to be effected; other lawyers, equally learned, told them that such an arrangement could not be effected; he thought, therefore, that it was desirable that this Clause should be introduced in order to make that matter perfectly clear. Its acceptance would confirm that which was already believed to be the existing law by a very large number of persons. while its rejection, on the other hand, although it would no doubt technically leave the law as it was at present, no doubt would be considered as having changed it. He therefore hoped the Government would see their way to accept this or some similar Amendment.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he was much obliged to the noble Lord who had just sat down for saying what he had. If the Government were perfectly clear that Clause 7 of this Act did not over-ride the power given to the local authorities by the Act of 1870, that was a very satisfactory interpretation of the Government position. Unfortunately, Parliamentary utterances, however clear, were not the law of the land, and there were great doubts upon this subject. He was no lawyer, but as he, read Clause 7 he thought there would be a great many more doubts in the future.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: What part of the Clause?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he did not know that he could point out at the moment what part of the Clause he referred to, but he should have thought the whole of the Clause. If the noble Duke would kindly amend the Clause in the way he thought best and add it to the Bill, and thus make perfectly clear what the law was, he would be greatly obliged to the noble Duke.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid it was perfectly true that the managers of schools were at the present time able to make arrangements to let their schools I to local authorities, but what precluded the owners of schools from making these arrangements was that the lease they made with the local authorities had to be made with the consent of the Board of Education, and to all intents and purposes the conditions imposed by the Board of Education in respect of the lease were such as practically amounted to a transfer of the ownership of the school-house from the hands of the denominational managers to the hands of the local authority. This Clause was proposed really very much in the interest of the local authorities and the ratepayers, because, after what had happened with regard to this Bill, with the very best intentions to make the very best of it, it was quite clear, after what fell from the rev. Prelate, the Bishop of London, on the previous day, that it was extremely probable that a great many schools which had every desire to go on would not be able to continue as denominational schools. It is surely very much to the advantage of the local authorities, and very much to the advantage of the ratepayers themselves, that where such a thing occurred the denominational school owners should be able to make terms with the local authority, and should be able to lease their schools to the local authority, and at the same time to be able to retain these rights with regard to them. This Clause, in such a case, would do away with the necessity of building a second school in the area by enabling the managers to grant a lease of this sort. He believed arrangements of this sort would constantly be made if this Clause were accepted. He quite saw that, as the Clause was drawn.
in the last line but two, it would be open to the managers of the school to make conditions as to the religious management, but if this Clause was amended by the Government so that the school leased came under the rule governing the provided schools, that objection would entirely fail, and it would leave the religious instruction to be given by the denominational owners outside the school hours. It seemed to him a Clause which the Government could accept and a Clause that the Opposition could accept. It was really an advantage to the ratepayers. If the Clause were accepted, a query would arise as to whether something should not be brought in to modify Section 23 of the Education Act of 1887.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I submit that the noble Lords supporting this Clause have either been unwilling or have not been able to point out in what respect the existing law of transfer is insufficient. All that the noble Lord who has just sat down has said was that the Clause affecting transfer was under the administration of the Education Department, and that the Education Department makes conditions which prevent this Clause from coming into operation. That is, surely, not a matter for legislation, but one of administration.
On Question, Amendment disagreed to.
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid that the Amendment standing in his name dealt with a subject which had been discussed on the previous Tuesday by their Lordships upon an Amendment moved by the Viscount Goschen. He did not consider it necessary to go over all the ground covered by some of the speeches made in that discussion, because he thought the equitableness and the justification of his Amendment had been admitted by both sides of the House. It had been admitted by the noble Duke, when he accepted the Amendment of the noble Lord Viscount Goschen. Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord the Earl of Rosebery had taunted the Government with having done nothing to meet the grievance of the one-school areas, and on the previous
784
Tuesday had asked what steps the Government had taken to elicit the wishes of the parents in this matter. The proposal he now made was one which did much to remedy the grievance of the one-school areas, and a proposal which was directly concerned with the wishes of the parents, and therefore upon principle, at least, he claimed the support of the noble Lord to his Amendment. The only objection taken by Lord Tweedmouth to the Amendment of the noble Lord (Viscount Goschen) was that it interfered with the unity of an existing system, and that they could not do for secondary education that which they did not do for elementary. As that was the only objection of the noble Lord, it was only fair to claim that when the matter had been arranged for secondary education on the ground of the unity of our education system, it should also be arranged for our elementary education. He therefore claimed his support to this Amendment. He admitted that noble Lords opposite had expressed their desire that nothing which they had said on the subject of secondary education should be taken as a precedent when the subject matter of elementary education came up for discussion. He had, therefore, no wish to make any capital out of what had been said by the noble Viscount, and he would not refer to anything that had been said by noble Lords opposite, except to this extent—that they did not deny that their objection to his Amendment was not one of principle but of practice; they did not deny that it was just in principle, they did not deny that if it were put into practice and made to work it would supply the remedy to the grievance felt with regard to the one-school area, and they did not deny that it was in the interest of religious liberty, and was in accordance with their often reiterated principles that denominational teaching in all schools should be carried on at the expense of the denominations. What noble Lords opposite said was that it did not work out in practice. To that objection he would offer two remarks. In the first place, he would ask their Lordships to notice that the form in which he moved this Amendment differed substantially from the form in which it was moved in the other House, inasmuch as the duty of providing these facilities was in this case simply optional and was therefore loft at the discretion of the local authority, which

785
they had been so often asked to trust. In the second place, it would be said that this principle had not up to the present had an opportunity of proving beyond all doubt as to whether it was practicable or otherwise. He might best meet that objection by taking certain concrete instances and trying to prove, as he thought was the case, that in some cases it had been made to work satisfactorily hitherto. He would take the case of Birmingham, a case which was raised in the other House, when these words were used by the Prime Minister, Mr. A. J. Balfour, speaking of the Birmingham plan—
"He thought that by universal consent the plan did not eassy out either the intentions or the wishes of its trainers, and it had been abandoned."
It had been since proved that the statement of the Prime Minister was not strictly correct. It was perfectly true that when this system was introduced at Birmingham it was abandoned as unworkable, but another system had been founded, which had continued very successfully down to the present time, and in order to show what that system was he would refer to clause 8 of the regulations of the Birmingham School Board of the present day, amongst which was one by which the School Board was empowered to let its school at a rent of five shillings a day for half an hour's religious instruction on two mornings in the week, when any denominational teacher could come in and give that instruction. That was the principle he now asked their Lordships to sanction by this Amendment, and in testimony of its success in actual work he, would cite the opinion of the Birmingham and District Council sub-Committee, which thought the school as a whole could not be said to have proved a failure, and that they believed, from reasons given by those in the highest authority, that it was capable of a further and mere satisfactory development. He did not know whether their Lordships were aware that this system was being worked in the Army schools of this country. The Duke of York Royal Military School at Chelsea was working under the same principle, and every scholar in that school might receive definite religious instruction, in his own belief, from a minister of his own denomination. The parents or guardians had to define the denomination of the child
786
on his entrance into the school, and he had to remain in that denomination as long as he was in the school. That was to prevent any proselytism. He was informed that the Roman Catholic members of the school went out every Monday for an hour to receive their instruction, but that the Church of England clergy and the Presbyterian and Wesleyan ministers came into that school to teach their religion, and that in that school they knew no religious difficulties. In the case of New South Wales the principle was also at work. The Act which established the State schools in New South Wales provided two things; first of all it provided that religious teaching as against denominational teaching should be given in those schools, and beyond that it provided that full denominational religious teaching should be given by the recognised teachers of each religion. He submitted that those cases were sufficient to prove that this principle had been made to work in the past, and he challenged noble Lords who differed from him on this subject to produce instances where it had failed. All he asked was that some encouragement should be given to this principle, in order that use might be made of this facility and that it might be proved beyond dispute whether this system was practicable. He did not ask it on behalf of the Church of England, but in common fairness to all denominations. There appeared to him to be two dangers in this Bill which would, in his opinion, be met by this Amendment. The first was a tendency to a large, possibly, but wholly undesirable increase in denominational schools, because it was laid down in this Bill that the managers of any school which contained thirty members could come upon the public rates and become a school supported by the State. He saw in that a danger, where clerical opinion was opposed to the denominational character of the teaching given in a local school, of the increase and multiplication of these schools in order to obtain the denominational teaching that was desired. The second danger was this. He placed himself amongst those who had serious doubts as to whether this Bill would produce the result which they expected it to produce, namely, the preservation of the denominational character of these schools, and he could not but think that when once these

787
schools were made public schools and supported out of the rates their denominational character was very seriously imperilled, and he might say that this was only a question of time. If that was true, and it came to pass that these schools were to lose their denominational character, a provision of this sort would become necessary, if religion was to be preserved in our schools. All he asked was that an opportunity should be given to theological professors to see whether this proviso was possible. In those places where it was thought it was desirable the authorities would put it into effect, and if it were found not to work it would cease to be carried on. No harm whatever could be done by this extremely moderate proposal, and great interest would be taken in testing this experiment and seeing if it would work. It was a principle which was admitted by all parties to be the soundest and truest settlement of the religious difficulty.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 7, to insert the following new Clause, 'The managers of all public elementary schools, whether provided by the local education authority or not, may, at the request of parents of children attending such schools, permit religious instruction to be given to such children according to the tenets and faith of their parents, in the school buildings, at hours other than those assigned for secular instruction without making any charge for the use of such buildings, provided that the instruction be under the direction and management of a responsible person or a responsible authority duly accredited on behalf of the religious community to which the parents concerned belong, and provided that such religious instruction, and, if required, extra remuneration of the caretaker of the school buildings, and to make good any damage that may occur.'"—(The Earl of Lytton.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid he just wished to add to the evidence brought the Amendment before the House, the case of the Drury Lane Day Industrial School. That school was an ordinary board school except that industrial training formed part of its curriculum, and in that school there was a certain provision for religious teaching under the control of ministers of different denominations. In that school there had never been any
788
friction in the working. With regard to the jews in the London board schools, there was a separate provision made. There was a provision made for Jewish education in a large school at Kilburn, and there was never any kind of friction there. They had here a great deal of how desirable it was that the education of this country should not be inferior to the education given abroad, and notably by Germany, but in Germany the whole of the education was under public control, and was supported entirely by public money. It was wholly denominational; the children were brought up according to their parents' wishes, and there was on kind of friction in the matter at all. sir J. Fitch, just before this matter was brought before the other House, wrote a long letter to The Times for the purpose of insisting that this plan was un brake and produced friction. His letter was full of assertions, but when he was J. Fitch could not do so. He had thought fit, however, to write a similar letter for the similar purpose of influencing their Lordships' debate this evening. Again, when he was challenge, he had no answer. It could be proved that this principle could be worked, not only without friction, but in the interest of the Church and of all the denominations. It was, he believed, the object of this Bill to provide for denominational education whenever there was a demand for it. As the noble Earl had told their Lordships, the Bill did provide for denominational education under Clauses 8 and 9. He thought hose were very valuable Clauses, but, at the same time, as the noble Lord had pointed out, it was a very expensive way of providing denominational education, and the consequence was that if they insisted that facilities should be granted, such as the Amendment proposed, it would result in a great saving with regard to the rates, and it would do something, and he thought a very great deal, to preserve in the future the denominational character of our schools, without inflicting the slightest hardship.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid he should very much regret if the Amendment, which had been moved in so careful and thoughtful a speech by the noble Earl, whose part in these

789
debates he was sure they all welcomed, did not elicit some of the strong, and, as he thought, widely distributed feeling upon this subject which he believed existed both in this House and in the country at large. The noble in the country at large. The noble Earl was well justified in saying that the great preponderance of argument and reason was in favour of some such plan as he had suggested. For his own part, the reasons which seemed to him to encourage to that one. They were all human, and when anyone took a particular course people were disposed to ask what he was aiming at, and to presume he was aiming at something favourable to himself and to his friends. So in the present case he said friendly that he was aiming at something favourable to the cause for which he was concerned, namely, the giving of denominational teaching to the children of his own denomination. But he felt equally clearly that the proposals of the noble Earl would do every justice to those whom on many of these points he was obliged to treat as opponents, and those two results were about equally balanced. His one claim or right to speak upon this particular matter was that his diocese contained a very large proportion of those great areas which surrounded our growing towns. and which had practically created new cities where before there were fields, and of which the Metropolis had the lion's share. In all those areas, broadly speaking, denominational education had no chance, for all the education was now provided by the School Boards, as it would be in the future by the local authorities. Therefore, those who were anxious, as His Majesty's Government were, to meet the fair claims of the denominationalists would see that there was a very real need—a very real greivance, he might almost call it —to be met. Turning to the other side of the matter, they had defended, as they felt bound to defend, the schools of the Church, but he thought they had never denied, as he certainly himself had never denied the fact that the case where the maintenance of these schools pressed hardly upon the Nonconformists was the case of a district in which the Church school was the only school in the area. What. then, was it necessary and right for them to do in regard to that grievance? It was necessary and right
790
to meet it in every way they could, and if it were possible, in every one of those schools for the noble Lord's Clause to come into effect, it was quite evident that while denominational teaching was carried on there would be an open door to Nonconformist teachers to come in and teach Nonconformisst children. He knew what was said with regard to that; he knew that it was said to be an old snare, and that it was well known that Nonconformists could not take advantage of it. If anyone were inclined to take up that objection, he would ask the objector whether he had considered the new provision in this very Bill which rendered it possible in all schools to have Nonconformist teachers. The acceptance of the noble Lord's Clause, which enabled such teaching to be given combined with the effect of that Clause in the Bill which provided the teachers to give it. It appeared to him a means of alleviating the Nonconformist grievance, which he for one should not only claim as a great concession, but which he cordially desired. Speaking for himself, and, he believed, his brethren upon the Episcopal Benches, they wished to do to their neighbours as they would have their neighbours do to them. The Cowper-Temple Clause was valued for one particular purose, and while it carried out that purpose it had an incidental result which might quite easily be dropped off. The Cowper-Temple Clause provided, as its main purpose, that in schools publicly provided there should be undenominational instruction. Its incidental effect was that it excluded all other kinds of teaching. In this instance, if the Amendment were admitted, nothing would be done to touch the effect of the Cowper-Temple Clause with regard to its main effect. It was his opinion that an Amendment of this kind would long ago have had a great deal more support and gone a great dela further, and would have now been part of the law of the land, had there not been on the part of the teachers opposition to the imposition of a test. He did not think that any fears or anxiety as to the imposition of a test in this matter were in the least likely ot be justified, and there was the less ground under a Bill which would open new posts to Nonconformists.
THE MAKQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I associate myself with the two speakers who have gone before me in congratulating the noble Earl upon the way in which he has moved this Clause. So plausibly has he moved the Clause that if it were allowed to go to a division now the plausibility of the noble Lord might have persuaded your Lordships to vote in its favour. But, although it was put forward so skilfully, the Clause, as it is at present, has neither practicability nor popularity. I think, my Lords, the practicability of this Clause, or rather the impractica bility of it, is shown by the letter to which the noble Lord opposite alluded, the letter of Sir Joshua Fitch in yesterday's Times. The noble Lord said that Sir Joshua Fitch was somewhat of an opportunist in his opinion.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid he did not in the least say that he was an opportunist in regard to his own opinion, but that he had thought it worth while to publish both letters before this debate came on in order to insist on his own views.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I lay the greatest possible value on the opinion of Sir Joshua Fitch, and the letter he wrote to The Times to my mind puts plainly and clearly what would be the position of the schools of this country if this Clause were allowed to be passed. Therefore, as the question has been raised with regard to Sir Joshua Fitch, I shall ask to be allowed to quote to your Lordships one sentence of his letter with
792
regard to the position in which our schools would be if this Clause is allowed to pass—
"We shall have, for example, in a town in which there are several places of worship, a few children, at the hour assigned for the religious lesson in the school, going in different directions, some, it may be, to the parish church, where there is an Evangelical rector, some to a Presbyterian or Congregational chapel, and some to a High Anglican 'Mass.' They would all be expected to return and pursue the regular course of school studies at ihe end of the hour."
I would ask any one of your Lordships who has had any experience in the education of children in various localities as to whether if this Clause were accepted that would be desirable.
*EARL SPENCER: I do not quite see how this letter which the noble Marquess quotes can have any connection with the present Amendment; there is no mention of places of worship in the Clause before your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The interruption of the noble Lord is allowable, and I am quite willing to try and prove the connection. By this Clause it is permissible for all these ministers of religion to educate their children according to their own lights. What would be the result of such a condition of things? In the opinion of Sir Joshua Fitch it would be what I have quoted. I drop that point there with this remark, that I think that that paragraph is very appropriate to that condition of affairs; let me now go on to deal with what would be the condition of affairs from another point of view if this Clause were accepted. I have endeavoured to prove to your Lordships in the first place that it is impracticable. I now say that the Clause if passed would be absolutely unpopular with all those it was intended to benefit. The right rev. Prelate who preceded me dealt with the manner in which this Clause, as amended, would deal with the clergy of this country. He alluded more to the clergy of the large towns than to the country clergyman. What would the country clergyman sayif this Clause were accepted? He would say that his position would be absolutely impossible. He would be having quarrels in the parish if the Nonconformist minister came into his school

793
and interfered with his teachers. And what would be the position of the Nonconformist minister? Surely he would say, "The Church of England, with its large establishment of competent teachers, would flood the board schools; and the provisions would therefore be not in their favour, because the Church of England is better organised." There, once for all, you have the Nonconformist and the Church of England clergyman at sixes and sevens with each other. Then what would the teacher say? He would be in a harder position than either. He would naturally say, "I have the task of disciplining this school, but if I am to be interfered with by each of these ministers, who come down upon me whenever they please, what chance have I of maintaining discipline? My position is absolutely intolerable." Therefore you have all the three whom you desire to benefit set at variance if this Clause is accepted. I do not think my noble friends opposite will say I am out of order if I again quote the letter of Sir Joshua Fitch with regard to the teachers. Sir Joshua. Fitch says—
"The effect of the adoption of such a plan on the general discipline of flic school, and on the authority of the head teacher, would be disastrous."
For these reasons it is impossible for the Government to accept the Clause proposed by the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid the Clause moved bv the noble Earl opposite was not a Clause which provided that the children were to go to Church outside the school; on the contrary, it was a Clause to provide that denominational religious instruction should be given in the school; and the letter of Sir Joshua Fitch to The Times had nothing to do with the matter. The noble Marquess had said that the Clause would be unpopular with the country clergy, He knew something of the country clergyman, and in all his schools, and in nearly all the schools he knew of that sort, the clergymen would be all willing and glad that the Dissenting Minister should come into their school and teach his religion to the children of his denomination. It had attained a very large support from all the clergymen of the Church of England, and when it was said by the noble Marquess that the clergy would not like it, he ventured to
794
dispute that statement altogether. Did not the noble Marquess know that this system prevailed in New South Wales without any friction whatever, and that the whole of the statistics brought forward by the noble Earl opposite showed that the system worked well in Birmingham and other schools, with no friction whatever, and did not the noble Marquess know that the teachers were quite as willing as the clergy to give the different denominations this opportunity?
*THE LORDBISHOP OF CHICHESTERsaid the noble Lord had never been a country clergyman, whereas he had been in that position, and he knew what the opinion of the country elergyman was on such a matter as this, He believed they would welcome it as a matter of simple justice. He had no doubt that the Government would tell their Lordships that to accept such a Clause as this would destroy the symmetry of the Bill which had been prepared by them. What was that compared to the rights of the parents to say what religion their children should be taught? He stood up for the rights of the parents in this matter. For many long years he had advocated a scheme almost exactly similar, and had advocated that, especially in all our widespread country parishes which had only one school, there should be facilities given for Nonconformist teachers to teach all the children of Nonconformist parents in the schools. He knew there were difficulties in the way of carrying out this scheme, but under this Bill those difficulties would disappear, because upon the teaching staff of the under this Bill there could be one representative Nonconformist who could teach the children of his denomination. The country clergyman had far too much common sense not to welcome this Clause. It was not proposed by this Amendment that children should be drawn to different places of worship. What was suggested by the Clause was that there should be a room in the school during the hours of religious instruction, where the parents might have their children taught in the tenets of the religion which they professed. He believed that this Clause, if accepted, would work perfectly easily.
*LORD REAYsaid he only wished to say a very few words. This Amendment, in his opinion, was not necessary. He believed the managers of schools had the right to dispose of school buildings, when not used for instruction under the Code. All the arguments of the noble Marquess were directed against giving the religious instruction contemplated by the Amendment during school hours. The noble Marquess seemed to think that these facilities were to be given during school hours, but they had nothing whatever to do with the time table. What was intended by the Amendment was that these facilities should be given outside the school hours.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think the noble Lord is wrong in that. The terms of the Amendment are "at hours other than those assigned for secular instruction," but I think the direct intention is that this religious instruction shall be given during school hours.
*LORD REAYsaid if that was intended it was not what he understood. He had gathered from the speech of the Mover of this Amendment that this instruction was to be given not in substitution, but as a supplement, to the regular religious instruction during the meeting of the school. Of course, if the noble Duke was right, the objections so well put by Sir Joshua Fitch did apply, and he would vote against the Amendment. He had also risen to answer the question put to him on the previous evening by the noble Viscount—:Lord Halifax—who had stated that the Gospel of St. John had been excluded from the syllabus of religious instruction in the London board schools. Since 1891 that Gospel had been included every year, and was now included in the Scripture Syllabus. The information supplied to the noble Viscount had therefore been inaccurate. As regards the noble Viscount's allegation that teachers were prohibited from explaining passages in the Prophecies as alluding to Our Lord, he could find no trace of such prohibition. The only instructions given to the teachers were that they should teach in accordance
796
with the provisions of Sections 7 and 14 of the Act of 1870, in letter and in spirit.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid so much had been made of the view that was likely to be taken by the clergy in this matter, that it was excusable that more than one member of the Episcopal Bench should intervene in the debate. References had been made to the letter of Sir Joshua Fitch, and any man who had the interest of eduction at heart derived great value from that gentleman's opinion. He had never read a letter of Sir Hoshua Fitch without finding that he had gained something from it, and the matter in question had been laid before them with all the wealth of experience which Sir Joshua possessed, but Sir Joshua Fitch's words had been used tonight as an answer to quite a different proposal from that to which his words had been directed. The proposal against which they had been directed—a proposal which had been frequently made in these debates—was that the managers should be compelled, at the request of a certain number of parents, to make such arrangements as were here described, but the noble Lord's proposal was that the managers should be left a discretion in the matter. He, personally, was prepared to trust the managers, and he entered a respectful protest against words which had been written against the forcing of such an arrangement upon the managers being used against the suggestion that the managers should do as they pleased. He saw great difficulty in such a plan as this working in the great board schools of our large towns, and personally, if he were a manager of one of these schools, he would be very loth to take advantage of this privilege. But it was an entirely different thing in the country districts, and even though the noble Marquess who was responsible for the Board of Education believed the country clergy would not like it, he might safely leave it to those to answer who spoke in a special manner for a few of the clergy in this matter. While it was certain that there would be many men in the country who would view it a little jealously, he was perfectly certain that the majority of the country clergy would welcome

797
the proposal as a matter of fairness, and would follow it out in practice, and they would find that it would work exceedingly well. He ventured to think that attention had not been given to the words of his brother the Bishop of Rochester when he pointed out that the Bill introduced a large number of Nonconformist teachers into our country schools, who would be the very people who would give this instruction if the Nonconformist ministers were not there to do so. At all events, he hoped it would be made perfectly clear to the public that, so far as the Bishops were concerned, they desired that these facilities should be given to their Nonconformist friends, to whom they wished justice to be done, and that if objections came to the proposal they did not come from the Episcopal Bench. Their Lordships would well remember the message of the Primate in which he said, had strength been permitted to him, he would have pleaded specially for such arrangements under this new Bill as would make it impossible for any sense the grievance to remain among the Nonconformists; and as the carrying of this Clause would be exactly the thing to give effect to the wish expressed by the Primate, he earnestly hoped it would be accepted.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think this discussion has been sufficiently prolonged, because, so far as I can see, the arguments have pointed entirely to one side, with one exception, and some statements in a letter that has been referred to, which, as has already been pointed out, do not apply to the Amendment in question. The noble Earl who brought forward this question with so much cleverness challenged me so directly to give him my support that I am bound to say that whatever my support may be worth, though I fear it may not be so beneficial as he may think, but rather damaging than otherwise, he is fully entitled to have, and shall have it. But I fear he rather underrated his own case. This is a system which is adopted throughtout the whole of the British Empire with the exception of these islands. In all our self-governing Australian Colonies this system has been adopted, and has worked without friction and with admirable results. I do not anticipate so fortunate a course for it within this kingdom of England, but I am encouraged by the
798
assurance of the right rev. occupants of the Episcopal Bench that if the Government accept it they, at any rate, will endeavour to give it a fair trial, and that therefore we may hope to see this system attempted in our schools, and thus force into them, that which I fear this Bill has not, the germ of a national system of education. My noble friend the Chairman of the London School Board has said this Clause is unnecessary. I do not venture to strive with my noble friend in argument on questions relating to education, but I would venture to point out that even if it should be unnccessary—and with regard to that I have my doubts also—it will be valuable as an indication to the managers. The managers may have willingness in their minds, but, perplexed as to what is and is not in the Bill, they may be doubtful as to their powers to carry this out. Therefore I think that this is a valuable indication, and its value cannot be over-estimated in this country. I believe this Clause would be very valuable in conjunction with the Clause you are able to pass into law. But, though it is likely to be valuable, it will not settle the question. I share the misgivings of the noble Earl who put forward this Amendment as to the effect of the Bill; but at any rate it will be a sign of grace and liberality and of hope for the future which I do not care to minimise.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid: This proposal was discussed several times in the Diocesan Synods, a body of clergy and laity, and they had come to the conclusion that in Church schools it was desirable to give these facilities to Nonconformist teaching. That decision was, after a considerable discussion, arrived at almost unanimously. The clergy at first, as the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government suggested, regarded it with suspicion; but, after the question had been before them on several occasions they had seen it was fair, and, as fair-minded men, they were entirely prepared to accept it.
*EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I wish to say one of two words upon this question. I rather differ ssfrom what has been said by noble Lords in support of this Clause, and feel great difficulty in going against the decision of the Government in this matter. I understood

799
the noble Marquess who represents the Education Department to say there was great practical difficulty in introducing this Clause into the Bill; the Bishop of Winchester admitted that there would be great difficulty in applying it to the great board schools.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: The difficulty I saw was applying it compulsorily, which was the proposal made before. It makes all the difference in the world when the decision is to be left to the managers.
*EARL SPENCER: But is it of much use? If there is much difficulty in applying it in the great School Boards, is it right to apply it elsewhere? A good guide in these matters generally is to see what the authorities have to say upon the subject, and I understand the noble Marquess that it would not be practicable to carry out this Clause if it were accepted.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: What I said was that it would not give satisfaction to all those denominations which it is intended to benefit. I said the Nonconformists would not like it, the elergy would not like it, and the managers would not like it. That is the line I take.
*EARL SPENCER: I quite adopt what the noble Marquess says. If the various denominations dislike this Amendment, I am not in favour of introducing it. Why do they dislike it? Because they think it will operate to their disadvantage. For these reasons I am seriously not disposed to vote in favour of the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Earl extremely ably and very skilfully, and therefore I certainly shall support the Government if, as I understand, they are not ready to adopt the proposal of the noble Earl.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am quite willing to admit, and it must be admitted by everyone, that there is a great deal in the principle of this Amendment to which we can all give our assent. The position is rather a complicated position, and I
800
must endeavour, with your Lordships' permission, to explain as well as I can what that position is. This is part of a proposal brought forward in the Other House by Lord Hugh Cecil. This, I admit, is not the whole of that proposal, and it may not be exposed to all the difficulties to which the whole of that proposal is exposed, but it is part of that proposal and embodies the principle proposed by Lord Hugh Cecil in the other House. The Prime Minister, speaking of behalf of the Government, so far admitted the justice of the principle that he said that if it had been embodied in a Bill, and that he had been asked to vote for the Second Reading of such a Bill, he could not refuse to vote for it, and he actually did not vote against it in the division that was taken in the House; but he stated with equal clearness—with perfect and absolute clearness—that the Government were not prepared at this stage of this measure to introduce fresh matter of controversy. My Lords, I think this matter is so important that I dare say the House will forgive me for committing a breach of order and quoting words used by a responsible Minister in charge of a Bill in the other House. He said —
"He did not see that it was now practical at all. If this were embodied in the Bill, and they were now engaged in a debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, he would go with the noble Lord without scruple; but if any vote of his in favour of reading this Clause a second time was to be taken as a pledge that the Government were going to make themselves responsible for any proposal of that kind, he thought they would be greatly misleading the House by adopting any such suggestion. Under these circumstances he could not vote against the Clause, but he should abstain from recording his vote on the question."
And, as a fact, he walked out of the House when the division was called. I think those words fully show how utterly impracticable a measure it would be to send this Clause back for discussion at this period of the session to the other House. This proposal has two sides, but only one of them has been much referred to in the discussion that has taken place; in fact the noble Earl on the Cross Benches whso is going to support the Clause referred exclusively to one side of the proposal. It is a proposal that in denominationl schools Nonconformist religious

801
teaching shall be admitted under certain conditions. We are bound to take the declaration of the Episcopal Bench that this would, generally speaking, be not unwillingly received by the managers of the voluntary schools. I venture to think their acquiescence in it would not be by any means universal, but I am bound to take the opinion of the Episcopal Bench that the clergy would not be against it; but it may be conceived that the prelates who have taken part in this discussion would have considered it to be an inequitable arrangement if it had been a one-sided arrangement. The proposal which they support is that this shall apply not only to the non-provided schools but to the provided schools also. Am I right? [Hear, hear!] Then I am right. It is to admit Church teaching into what are now called board schools.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: Where the managers desire.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That is exactly the point. That is the objection. The local authority has to decide whether this admission of the Church teacher in the schools is to be permitted or not; that is to say, the local authority is to decide whether in certain cases the Cowper-Temple Clause is to be abrogated or maintained as it is now. Well, my Lords, we contend that the possibility of raising such a question will lead to interminable discussion, not only among the members of the local education authority themselves, but also in the election for the appointment of the local authority. It raises the whole question. We have, as I said before on a previous Amendment this evening, adopted a principle in this Bill by which we leave the question of denominational instruction where it was. We leave the denominational instruction to be given in voluntary schools where it was; and we leave it subject to the Cowper-Temple Clause in every case in the provided schools. The question whether denominational instruction is, under certain conditions, to be permitted in the provided schools cannot fail to raise religious discussions in the debates of every local education authority in the country and for that reason the Government cannot consent to the introduction, especially at this stage of the Bill, of this Amendment, knowing the
802
interminable length to which the discussions would be prolonged if such a Clause were sent back to the other House. Therefore we cannot agree to the acceptance of this proposal. I do not think that this point has been quite understood, because some noble Lords appear to be under the impression that this can already be done. I think some reference has been made to what is still going on at Birmingham. At Birmingham it is said that some of the schools are let at a certain rate to denominations for religious instruction within those schools at hours before or after the school hours. Well, my Lords, that, it appears, can be done under the existing law, but what this Amendment will effect depends upon the words in the proposal of the noble Earl, that religious instruction may be given "at hours other than those assigned for secular instruction;" that is to say, at hours within which the attendance of children is compulsory, and religious instruction at hours other than those at which attendance is compulsory can be permitted now by the School Board without, as is done in Birmingham, infringing the Cowper-Temple Clause. But, without abrogating the Cowper-Temple Clause, religious instruction can be given during the hours of compulsory attendance. This proposal does, therefore, amount to giving to the local authority in every county, and in every borough, the power, if it thinks fit, of abrogating to that extent the Cowper-Temple Clause, and our contention is that such a power cannot be given to a local authority without the certainly of raising prolonged, acrimonious, and probably interminable disputes upon the religious question, and it is on these grounds that we must object to this proposal.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I only want to ask one question of the noble Duke. He thinks the great danger of this Clause will be to introduce the religious question into the election of the local authority.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: And into their discussions.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Does the noble Duke really suppose that if this

803
Bill passes without this Clause the election of the local authority will be conducted without reference to the religious question?
Clause 8:-
Amendment moved —
"In page 5, line 19, leave out 'and' and insert 'or' "—(The Lord President.)
Agreed to
On Question, objected to. Their Lordships divided:-Contents, 68; Not-contents, 74.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 20, leave out 'and' and insert 'or' "—(The Lord President.)
Agreed to.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the Amendment which he desired to move was to insert in line 30, after the word "school," the words "not provided by the local education authority."He did so for this reason. As the Clause now stood, the local authority would be hampered in its operation by the first Section of the Clause. For instance, if the local authority should have come into the possession of a school which required such an enlargement as to practically constitute a new school, then the local authority might be prevented from carrying out this improvement, say, by ten ratepayers, or by any little clique of persons, or by someone who wished to bring in an independent school, a school he would say of this or that denomination not necessarily representing the sentiments of the neighbourhood. He ventured to ask for the insertion of these words because he could not understand why, or on what grounds of public interest, the local authority should be hampered in its operations by exposing itself to local opposition of this kind. They might assume that the local authority represented the spirit of educational progress and efficiency, and to insert all these hampering provisions was really to turn this Education Bill into a measure with a spoke in almost every wheel. Thereofore, without detaining the House further he asked that those words should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
"In page 5, line 30, after "school," insert not provided by the local education authority.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKthought the proposal was very hard, because it would allow the possibility of opposition whenever the local authority wished to enlarge one of the schools provided by the County Council. Surely this was a matter in which the County Council might be allowed to form their own opinion, and act according to that opinion, without being hampered in the way they would be if these words were not inserted in the clause.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Speeches upon this Amendment seem to me to go a great deal beyond the Amendment. As I understand it, the
806
right rev. Preclate would wish to give the power of providing a locl elementary school whenever they thought fit, and would not give a locus standi to the rate payers to propose any alternative. But he only applies his principle to the last sub-Section which Provides for an enlargement of the public elementary school,Which may amount to the Provision of a new shool. The Wole Clause goes on the Principle that equal facilities are to be give to the local education authority, or to the denominations, to provide a school, and it leaves it to the Board of Education to decide, after hearing the evidence, which proposal is most n the public interest. I cannot see the object of making a departure from the equal treatment of schools of all characters in the last sub-Section.
LORd RIBBLESDALEcontended that under the rather elaborate and in some ways hampering provisions of this Clause the education authority which happened to take over a non-provided school which was in such a state that it required enlarging to such an extent that it almost amounted to rebuilding would not, if the Lord Bishop of Hereford's Amendment were accepted, be obliged to go through all these precautionary and elaborate provisions which were set out in the Clause.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: They have only to give notice of their intention.
LORD RIBBLESDALEreplied that giving notice was often a very long business.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
*LORD REAYsaid that in big towns it was of the utmost importance that when the necessity arose, or was likely to arise, for a new school, the site should be acquired, without giving public notice, by a private bargain. It was a great advantage to conclude a private bargain and to avoid the procedure of compulsory acquisition. This applied to the area which was already built over; it also applied to areas where no extensive building operations had as yet taken place, but where they foresaw that extensive building operations would occur, and

807
where consequently there would be a considerable rise in the value of property. This Clause prescribed that the local education authority must give public notice of its intention, and the "other persons" mentioned in the Clause would also have to give notice of their intention; but it would obviously be much easier for private individuals such as those "other persons" to acquire sites by private bargain than it would be for the local education authority, who, of course, had to obtain sanction for their expenditure. At the present time School Boards constantly acquired sites by private bargain, and he did not need to indicate that this was a great financial protection to the ratepayers. As this Bill mentioned in the next Clause that they must have regard to the "economy of the rates," he thought he was justified in asking whether under Clause 8 the present situation would be altered, or whether it would be in the power of education authorities to obtain, at all events, the same facilities which undoubtedly these "other persons" would have to acquire sites without proclaiming publicly that it was their intention to acquire them. As regards the building of the school, the Department would, he supposed, have the same power which it exercised now. What he had mentioned only applied to the site and not to the building of the school.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I fail to see how it is possible for the local authority to acquire a site under this provision, in anticipation of the notice which they have to give. The noble Lord wishes the authority to acquire a site, and then he thinks that they may find that permission to build a new school will not be given. For their own protection it seems to me that they must get permission first.
*LORD REAYsaid that at present of the site was not required there was no difficulty in disposing of it. It was obviously in favour of the ratepayer that they should have this power, and that this risk should be run. At the present time the risk could be run and there was nothing to prevent it, but as this Clause was drafted he was afraid that in future it would be especially in populous
808
and growing towns a very serious disadvantage if the local authority had to give public notice before they acquired a, site.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not see how the difficulty is to be got over. The point is one which is quite new to me, but I will undertake to consider the matter and give the noble Lord an answer on Report.
Clause 8 agreed to.
*VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he did not intend to move his new Clauses in the form in which they stood on the Paper, and he thought it would not be unfair to ask the noble Duke to deal with the First Clause he had on the Paper on. Report. As to Clause (b) he should not trouble their Lordships with it at all.
Clause 9:—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that two Amendments stood on the Paper in his name, but, as he wished to be able to save their Lordships one speech, if they would allow him to deal with both those Amendments at the same time, he would be able to put the matter before them more clearly than if he was obliged to take the Amendments one by one, which would necessitate him repeating his arguments. This Clause dealt with schools already recognised as public elementary schools. Clause 8 dealt with new schools, and provided that when it was proposed to build a new school certain persons might appear and might make objections. Either the managers, the local education authority, or any ten ratepayers could object. He wished, first of all, to call their Lordships' attention to the effect of the Clause as it stood.
The Bill provided in Clause 9 that—
"The Board of Education shall, without unnecessary delay, determine in case of dispute whether a school is necessary or not."
Then followed words to the effect that in so determining they should be bound by certain considerations. The last words of the Clause go on to provide as follows—
"But a school already recognised as a public elementary school shall not be considered unnecessary in which the number of scholars in average attendance, as computed by the Board of Education, is not less than thirty."
He wished to call their Lordships' attention to the way in which this proposal would work. The Clause as it stood left it to their Lordships to draw the inference that the Board of Education was to decide when a dispute might arise, but it did not say between whom and, therefore, it left open a rather important question, but it said that the persons who disputed the necessity of a school might before the Board of Education. Then the Clause proceeded to say that no such schools should be considered unnecessary.That was to say that no question might be raised as to the necessity of a school which had thirty children or more in average attendance. He invited their Lordships to consider for a few moments how this Clause would work. The plan of the Bill was to place all control in the hands of the local authority as representing the ratepayers, and to oblige the ratepayers to pay or to maintain all the schools which were necessary, but at the same time they proceeded to say to the County Council, when they took over these schools, "You have got to pay for them all but you are not to be allowed to raise a question as to whether any of these existing schools are necessary if they have thirty children attending them." It appeared to him that that restriction did away with the whole value of the Clause. What was the good of first telling a local authority that they might raise a question, and then the practically withdrawing that permission? He was under the impression that the Government desired to trust the local authority. If they wished to trust the local authority why should they not allow them to raise questions beffore the Board of Education as to whether any school within their area was necessary or not. He would give their Lordships a few practical illustrations as to how this Clause would work. He had taken the returns of the Board of Education for the year 1901-02, and he would tell the House how this provision would work. He would first take as an example the county of Bedfordshire. In the county of Bedford there were 158 schools, which would all be taken over by the local authority, and which would have to be mainatained by them. They would be allowed to raise this question with regard to seven school only out of those 158
810
He was bound to say that this happened to be a very extreme case. He would now quote the statistics for the country of Hampshire. There they had 379 schools and they would only be allowed to raise the question with regard to thirty-eight of the total because there were only thirty-eight schools which had under thirty children in average attendance. He also wished to observe that in the country of Hampshire they had twenty-eight schools with between thirty and forty children in average attendance, twenty-two schools with between forty and fifty children, and there were fifity schools with pupils and scholars numbering between thirty and fifty, in regard to which the local authority would not be allowed to raise this question. He did not propose to give the local authority and power to abolish the school upon its own ipse dixit, but what he maintained was that if they carried out the principle of the Bill properly they ought to allow the local authority to raise the question as to the necessity of any school before the Board of Education. In the county of Northumberland there were 306 schools. In that country they had a right to raise the question with regard to thirty-two only. In the country of Northumberland there were thirtyeight schools with scholoars numbering between thirty and forty, and they could not raise the question. There were also twenty-night schools with between forty and fifty children, and they could not raise the question, and yet the ratepayers would have to pay for all those schools, although they would not be allowed to ask this question. In Worcestershire there were 281 schools, and there they could raise questions with regard to twenty schools. In the country of Lancashire, with 1,065 schools, they could only raise this question with regard to twentyseven of them. He submitted that by this Clause they were tying the hands of the local authority in a way in which they ought not to tie them. The local authority consisted of representatives of the ratepayers a very heavy burden under this Bill. Therefore, the least they could do was that if the local education authority, after reviewing the schools handed over to them, thought anu of them were unnecessary, they should be

811
allowed to place the case before the Board of Education. Surely it was not unreasonable to allow this. He wished to call their Lordships' attenetion to his Amendment, in order to show how he proposed to deal with this matter. If their Lordships would look at his Amendment, they would find that it made the following provision—
"A local education authority may inquire as to the necessity of any school already recongnised as a public elementary school, and may, with the consent of the managers, declare any such school to be unnecessary. In the event of the managers dissenting, the local education authority may appeal to the Board of Education, who shall, without unnecessary delay, determine the dispute, and who."
And then they were to be governed by those considerations already enumerated in the Bill. Their Lordships would see that he had very carefully limited the right of raising questions to the local authority alone. He did not think it would be right that the ratepayers, or any of the other named bodies, should raise this question, but it seemed to him only simple justice that the local authority, who had got to maintain those schools in the future, should be allowed to consider whether the burden which was being placed upon them was one which ought to be borne by them. He would give an illustration from his own personal experience as to how this Bill would work. It so happened that there was a parish in Warwickshire in which Lord Ribblesdale owned one village, and relatives of his owned the other. Each of those villages had a small and inefficient school, with between thirty and forth children in average attendance. Some years ago they closed the school belonging to his relatives, and required the children to walk about half-a-mile further to Lord Ribblesdale's village school, and now that rural school had been converted into a fairly good one. But suppose this Bill came into operation, and they had not joined those two schools the ratepayers of Warwickshire, without any right to raise any question, would have been obliged to keep up those two schools, and maintain them for all time. The instance he had give was not an isolated case at all. Take the case of a village where there was a small Dissenting school and a Church school, and where the population were about equally divided between them. He knew such a case where the two schools were amalgamated, and where a
812
good thriving school had been the result of such amalgamation. But supposing they had not come to that arranagement, and this Bill had come into force, the ratepayers of Warwickshire would have been compelled, without any means of protecting themselves, to keep up those two schools, and to maintain those two inefficient schools instead of the one good school. He ventured to submit that the sting of the Govenment Clause was contained in the tail. They began by professing to allow the local authority to inquire, but they ended by saying that practically they were not to inquire in regard to any schools at all. Those were the reasons which he ventured to submit why their Lordships should accept his Amendment.
Amendment Moved—
"In page 5, line 33, leave out from the beginning of the Clause to the first 'in' in line 35, and insert—'A local education authority may inquire as to the necessity of any school already recognised as a public elementary school, and may, with the consent of the managers, declare any such school to be unnecessary. In the event of the managers dissenting, the local education authority may appeal to the Board of Education, who shall, without unnessary delay, determine the dispute, and who'; line 38, leave out from 'rates' to the end of clause."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think that the first part of this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, and the effect of the Amendment is entirely contained in the second part. The first part seems to me to be unnecessary, because it is already provided for in the first words of Clause 7. Under Clause 7 it is provided that—
"The local education authority shall maintain and keep efficient all public elementary schools within their area which are necessary."
Of course, in order to decide whether they will acquire them or not, they must first establish that they are necessary.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that by the Clause, as it stood, they were forbidden to inquire.
THE DUKE OF DEVONDHIRE: The noble Lord acknowledges himself that the concluding words are the important words.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I did not admit that.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The concluding words of Clause 9 are—
"But a school already recognised as a public elementary school shall not be considered unnecessary in which the number of scholars in average attendance, as computed by the Board of Education, is not less than thirty."
As regards existing schools, I wish to point out that they are all at present necessary, because the Department only gives a grant to schools which in its opinion are necessary. Therefore, as to existing schools, I do not see the difficulty which is anticipated by the noble Lord will arise. In the cases which the noble Earl has quoted it seems to me perfectly easy for the local authority concerned to do away with any school which, in their judgment, is unnecessary by arrangement with the managers. What inducement has any body of managers to keep up the fabric and provide for the repairs of a school which is unnecessary, and which can be equally well provided for by the accommodation in another school. The object of these words in the Clause is to provide an equitable supplement to the provision of Clause 8 in regard to the providing of new schools. We have thought it right to give to the local authority, under certain conditions, the power to provide a new school, even if there is not an actual deficiency of accommodation in the old one; but it is clear that this power might be exercised in such a way as to be inequitable to an existing school. The local authority might build a new school, and in that way deprive the existing school of the greater part of its scholars, and probably this would be a voluntary school. The Government provide by this Clause that so long as the number of thirty children, which is already recognised in the Code, are in average attendance, that school shall not be deemed unnecessary. I do not see in what other way we could give an equitable protection to existing denominational schools.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the answer which the noble Duke had just made was no answer to the case which he had put to the Committee at all. He asked what was the reason for this proposal. In the first place, he did not admit that Clause 7 in any way directed an inquiry into all the existing schools, and what he pointed out was that
814
these words at the end of Clause 9 made such an inquiry absolutely impossible in many cases. The words said that they should not inquire. Then the noble Duke said that Clause 9 was intended as a supplement to Clause 8. With all due respect, he submitted that that was not the proper way of describing it, because, while Clause 8 dealt with new schools, Clause 9 dealt with all existing schools, and to such new schools as might hereafter be permitted under Clause 8. He would now take the noble Duke's other point. He had said that he must protect the rights of minorities, and that it was possible that a local authority might build a new school in an unfair manner so as to destroy an existing school. But how could that happen? No school could be built which could become a public elementary school without due notice, and without there was every opportunity given for persons, including the managers of any existing school, to object and to be heard by the Board of Education. Those words were retained in the Clause, and so such a school could not become a public elementary school unless the Board of Education had permitted it to do so.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Board of Education may consider that there is a case for a new school, but it may also consider that it would not be just to the denominational school that it should be deemed unnecessary, because its average attendance was diminished.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the noble Duke made two suppositions in favour of the authorities which existed under this Bill. He assumed that the local authority wished, without good reason, to build a second school.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I say that the new school may be necessary.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that in the second place no new school could be built without the permission of the Board of Education, and the noble Duke assumed also that the Board of Education was not able to judge whether it was a right case for building a new school or not.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have stated that there may be a perfectly good case for a new school, but not for the extinction of the old school.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked if the noble Duke would give him any reason why the local authority, which had got to pay for the school, was not to be allowed to raise the question of whether what it had to pay for was necessary and ought to exist. He did not ask for any arbitrary power to extinguish the school, but in common justice to the ratepayers who would have to pay for these schools, their representatives, if they thought fit, ought to be allowed to raise the question before the Board of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: These small denominational schools for years past had been maintained under great difficulties.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I never raised that question.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think that we owe to those gentlemen who have been responsible for the maintenance of those small denominational schools a debt of gratitude, and if we were to allow them to be swept out of existence we should be unfaithful to those who have done so much for education in the past. That is the reason why we propose to maintain the present schools. This is no question of creating new schools, and schools with an average attendance of thirty children have always been considered as existing schools in the past. These schools have been kept up at great deprivation, and it is simply a debt of honour, and we are bound to maintain them.
*LORD REAYpointed out that in a case where there were two provided schools, each with thirty children, and where it would obviously promote both efficiency and economy that those schools should be amalgamated, the local authority, by this proposal, would be powerless. He did not see why they could not trust the local education authority in the first instance and the Board of Education in case of a difference of opinion to settle the question. Why should the Board of Education be hampered in the decision it had to give when a dispute arose? If his noble friend went to a division he should certainly vote for his Amendment.
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid that the provision made by this Bill was a most
816
wasteful arrangement from the point of view of the ratepayers. They were going to maintain all these small schools of thirty children, and yet the Government professed that they had brought in a Bill for improving education. No doubt the new authorities would do their best to make those schools efficient, but he wished to point out that they would have to have a teaching staff just as large for thirty children as for schools with 150 children in order to make it efficient. Therefore, if the schools were to be made efficient, as he supposed was intended in the case of voluntary schools, they would be imposing upon the ratepayers a great and wasteful expense which would not be necessary if they allowed the schools to amalgamate.
LORD HERRIESpointed out that the Roman Catholics had a great number of these small schools which were acknowledged by the Department. He was afraid that the question of the rates might have considerable weight with the local authority, and might decide to put an end to these small denominational schools. There was in a small town in his own neighbourhood a Church of England school, a Wesleyan school, and a Roman Catholic school, and he doubted whether the average attendance was much above thirty children. In such cases there would be a very great inducement on the part of the ratepayers to close one of those schools in order to save the rates. All those schools had been acknowledged for a great number of years, and had been efficiently conducted; and he thought it would be hard upon the denomination to which they belonged that they should be put an end to merely because the local authority thought they were not necessary, without perhaps taking into consideration the question of the religion of the parents who sent their children to those schools. Such schools might be closed simply because the local authority thought that, having regard to the economy of the rates, those schools should no longer exist.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that he never proposed that the local authorities should have power to close such schools.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid that it appeared to him that if anybody

817
objected the whole matter went before the Board of Education, which would have to decide whether a new school was necessary. In coming to that conclusion, there was a distinct indication that the managers of any existing school might object to the establishment of a new school by the County Council. If there was a proposal by the County Council to have a new school, it was quite right that there should be an opportunity of going to the Board of Education to have the case heard, and to decide whether on the whole they thought it was right for the County Council to have a new school or not. When they came to the next Clause, which the noble Duke said was intimately connected with Clause 8, then it came to this—that those words at the end of the ninth Clause would stereotype for ever any school that had not less than thirty children in average attendance. It was not as if the proposal of his noble friend gave power to the County Council to abolish such schools. His proposal was simply that those schools should not be stereotyped, and that it should be possible for the County Council to go to the Board of Education and ask them to consider whether or no a certain school should be kept up. In spite of what had fallen from his noble friend behind him, he thought good grounds had been put forward showing that the circumstances connected with these schools should be weighed by the Board of Education. If their Lordships would look at the words they would see that in determining whether a school should be kept up or not, the Board Education had to have regard to the interests of secular instruction, to the wishes of the parents, and also to the education of the children. That would apply to cases where the minority consisted of any particular denomination. They also had to have regard to the economy of the rates. Surely that was protection enough without stereotyping these schools simply because they happened to have thiry scholars. He hoped that the Government would see that these words would hamper the action of the County Council, and might possibly put a charge upon the rates which the ratepayers ought not to be charged with.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERsaid it had been pointed out that it was desirable that they should give greater liberty in this matter. This was just an instance of the kind of harm that came from the inveterate and unhappy prejudice against denominational schools which prevailed on the other side of the House. If it were possible to regard the Board of Education as being permanently a fair and impartial arbiter between the denominational and undenominational schools, without prejudice against either class of schools, we should then probably be very much more ready to see matters of this kind entrusted to its arbitration. But we know the forces in the country hostile to denominationalism which operate upon some of our public bodies, and they will certainly tell upon the Department which comes under varying political influences. Therefore, having regard to all the circumstances, they were obliged rather to welcome, when it came from the Government, a permanent statutory security for the small denominational schools.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHassured the right rev. Prelate that noble Lords on that Bench were not in the least moved by any question of prejudice against denominational schools. Their view was simply that it was not wise to lay down the limit of thirty as a test of whether a school should be considered efficient or not. The test should be whether the school was efficient and necessary. It seemed to him that to maintain a school that was inefficient, simply because there were thirty children attending it, was doing a very wasteful thing, and was imposing an altogether unfair burden upon the ratepayers.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXwas quite sure that the words proposed by the Earl of Camperdown in their working were likely to do great injustice to small denominational schools, and he trusted the Government would not consent to alter the Clause as proposed by the Bill in this respect.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid that in his opinion what the noble Lord had pointed out did not seem to represent the effect of the law at the present

819
moment. At the present time, a school which had got thirty scholars, and was efficient, was entitled to claim a grant, and to continue to receive the education grants which were now given. Therefore, they were not stereotyping anything that did not already exist.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ELYsaid that every one of these schools must be an efficient school under the general law, and the County Council were bound to keep them up as efficient schools; therefore, the word inefficient introduced just now could not apply to any school kept up by the County Council. He was a little startled when he heard the argument that schools of 150 children did not require any more teaching staff then schools of thirty.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Do not the right rev. Prelates forget that in future these schools have to be kept up by the public. That fact seems to have been left out of consideration by my noble friend, Lord Herries, who spoke of a small but deserving school of which was cognisant on his estate.
LORD HERRIES: Not on my estate.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: At any rate, it was a school where the total attendance averaged thirty scholars. But surely, if you wish to have a really great national system of education, you do not wish to stereotype for all time these small and petty denominational schools? What you wish to do, I presume, is to strengthen the strong denominational schools, and maintain those that are efficient; but to keep scattered all over the country at the expense of the ratepayers these small schools, seems to me to be something of an injustice. I must say that I think the right rev. Prelate who presides over the See of Rochester rather let the cat out of the bag when he said his object was to stereotype for all time these

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Wellington, D.

Hertford, M.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Lansdowne, M.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Winchester, M.

Ailesbury, M.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Bristol, M. Northumberland, D

Camden, M. Abingdon, E.

Rutland, D.

Cholmondeley, M.

Denbigh, E.

small schools at the expense of the public.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is quite a mistake to suppose that a small school must necessarily be an inefficient school. A school with an average attendance of thirty is, in some respects, an ideal school, because it can be managed by one teacher. With regard to the noble Lord's point about existing small schools, and never getting rid of them, I should like to make a little further inquiry into the matter. I cannot conceive why under this Bill it should be the object of anyone to maintain two expensive schools when one large school would meet the necessity of the case. This Clause was introduced for the purpose of enabling the previous Clause 8 to work more equitably. We thought it right to give to the local education authority, or to any denominational body, as the case may be, power of providing a new school, even though there might not be a deficiency in school places. We think that the power may be very fairly exercised in a parish where there is now only a denominational school, but where there is a large majority of Nonconformists. As noble Lords are aware, under the present system, if there is not a deficiency in school places a provided school cannot be built. This Bill enables the sanction of the Education Department to be given in order that such a school may be built, and it may be quite right that such a school should be built. But we do not think it would be right at the same time to crush out of existence the denominational school which has been built with the knowledge and approval of the Government, and upon which a certain amount of capital expenditure may have been laid out. We do not think that such a school ought to be crushed out of existence so long as it can maintain an average attendance of thirty children.
On Question, their Lordships divided:— Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 22.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

London, L. Bp.

Ellenborough, L.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Elphinstone, L.

Feversham, E.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Herries, L.

Harrowby, E.

Erskine, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

James, L.

Londesborough, E.

Forester, L

Kenyon, L.

Lucan, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Kinnaird, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Nelson, E.

Southwell, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Onslow, E.

Winehester, L. Bp.

Lilford, L.

Radnor, E.

Lindley, L.

Romney, E.

Addington, L.

Ludlow, L.

Stamford, E.

Allerton, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Stanhope, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Manners, L.

Strafford, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Balfour, L.

Middleton, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Barrymore, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Wharnecliffe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

North, L.

Belper, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Braye, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Halifax, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Rothschild, L.

Hardinge, V.

Calthorpe, L.

Rowton, L.

Knutsford, V.

Chelmsford, L.

Saltoun, L.

Llandaff, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Seaton, L.

Congleton, L.

Sherborne, L.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Suffield, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

De Mauley, L.

Tredegar, L.

Ely, L. Bp.

Dormer, L.

Wentworth, L.

Lichfield, L. Bp.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Wimborne, L.Lincoln. L. Bp.

Dunboyne, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Ribblesdale, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Morley, E.

Stalbridge, L. [Teller.]

Northbrook, E.

Burghelere, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Portsmouth, E.

Coleridge, L.

Torphichen, L.

Spencer, E.

Denman, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Tankerville, E.

Greville, L.

Welby, L.

Caluses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:—
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 29, leave out the second 'the' and insert 'a.'"—(The Lord President.)
Agreed to.
*LORD KINNAIRDasked whether there would be any public notification as to who would take the place of any foundation managers who retired, or in case vacancies were caused by death, or from any other cause. He wished also to add a few words to his proposed Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 7, after sub-Section (2) insert as a new sub-Section: '(3) Any future manager shall be chosen from a list prepared by the Trustees and advertised in the usual
822
public place in the district, any ratepayer shall be eligible to have his name inserted on this list, prepared by the Trustees having been duly proposed and seconded after due notice given.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The managers will have to be chosen under the provisions of the trust deeds. The noble Lord's Amendment proposes to override the trust deeds, and suggests that they should be elected from a list of reatepayers.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HERRIESmoved a new Clause providing an appeal to the Board of Education if the managers of any school or college felt aggrieved by the action of the local education authority. The object of the Clause was to prevent any injustice being done to the

823
managers by the action of the local authority. They might occasionally find cases in which it was possible that the local authority might do some injustice to the managers of the local schools. He must say that the fact that the local authorities in some places exercised their powers over rather restricted areas supported him in the belief that there was some possibility occasionally of some ill - feeling or prejudice, or some act of fanaticism, which would induce the local authority not to be altogether fair and just to all the schools under their control. It was for that reason he thought it would be best to give a general power of appeal to the Board of Education. The Board of Education was situated in a more serene atmosphere than was always to be found in local districts, and, besides that, even the local authorities were subject to the control of the permanent officials, who were able to look at these questions very often without any political bias. For those reasons he begged to move that this general power of appeal should be given to the managers of all schools. There was one particular point which he thought was rather important, and that was the question of books. Under the Bill, as it stood, it would be possible for the local authority to prescribe any text books they might please. Upon questions of history he could quite understand the local authority having very strong feelings on the subject, and they might supply text books on matters of history which might be altogether unsatisfactory to the denomination to which the school might belong. In circumstances of that sort it was quite fair that there should be an appeal to the Board of Education. It was to prevent any possibility of an injustice being done to the managers that he desired to add this Clause, which enabled any managers affected to appeal to the Board of Education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord has raised a question which, to my mind, is already dealt with by this Bill. He proposes now a Clause which seems to relate more to higher education. I do not think it is necessary for the noble Lord to press the Clause, because already provision is
824
made in Clause 7, Section 3, for the determination of disputes. Therefore it is quite unnecessary to include this general power of appeal, which would do more harm than good. If my noble friend will turn to page 4, and look at Section 3, he will find that that entirely meets the question he has raised.
LORD HERRIESasked if that would cover every case throughout the Bill.
The MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Certainly.
LORD HERRIESsaid that in case of small differences arising between the managers of the school and the education authority, under Part II., as well as under Part III., there was no appeal provided for, and one did not see where the difference came in.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:—
The EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that the first part of Clause 13 provided—
" The local education authority may group under one body of managers any public, elementary schools provided by them, and may also, with the consent of the managers of the schools, group under one body of managers any such schools not so provided."
It might happen that the local education authority would think it was to group, say three or four schools, and that the managers of one of those schools could withhold their consent. It seemed to him to be rather hard, if that consent was unreasonably withheld, that this should be allowed to spoil the scheme, and consequently he proposed his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 7, after 'provided,' insert ' provided always that if, in the opinion of the local authority, the consent of the managers of one or more of such schools be withheld unreasonably, the local authority may appeal to the Board of Education, who, after due inquiry, shall determine the dispute."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The grouping of schools would, no doubt, be extremely convenient, but I think it would be inexpedient for schools which were unwilling. The principle of the

825
Bill is to keep denominational schools, as far as we possibly can, in the position in which they are at present, and to group schools, even to others of their own denomination, might deprive the school of its special character. I should object a good deal to the power which it is proposed to thrust upon the. Board of Education to settle these sort of differences, and it seems almost impossible for the Board of Education to undertake such a duty. We think that, on the whole, the best thing to do is to adhere to the provisions of the Bill, which require the consent of the managers. Probably all parties will agree, but in a great majority of cases the grouping will, be to their mutual advantage.
Amendment negatived.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MAN-CHESTERsaid he would not detain their Lordships very long on the Amendment he now moved. It was provided in the Bill that there might bo groups of schools. It was also provided in those schools that with the consent of all parties concerned, including the managers and the local education authority, the schools might be grouped in certain areas in certain numbers. It seemed to him that the Government had given an indication of their willingness that these schools, by means of the managers of the groups, should receive money, for in the second Schedule, on page 20, line 25, it was provided that a certain surplus of money from the Parliamentary grants which was not needed to pay outstanding liabilities might be paid over for the benefit of any general fund applicable for these purposes; so that the principle was not only that there might be groups of schools, but a certain small sum of money might be paid to them. Therefore they might receive money, but it was nowhere stated that they might receive, if the managers of the several schools in the group were prepared to pay it, the surplus resources of those several schools. It might be said that anybody could receive what another man was willing to pay unless the conditions of the gift and the receipt of it were unlawful, and that therefore, if the managers of any school in the group desired to pay over any of the resources in their hands to be dealt with by the council of the grouped schools, they could do so,
826
and the council might receive what was granted to them. That was the reason why he had proposed the perfectly voluntary power which was contained in the following words to be inserted in the Clause after the word "education:" "And the body of managers of any grouped schools may receive and dispose of the pecuniary resources of any schools within the group" The reason why he put in the words in this form was. that everybody knew that while, no doubt, the associaton of schools would very frequently lead to the more efficient and economical administration of their affairs, that was not the principal purpose for which the schools were grouped. A right rev. Prelate from the Bench: behind him said yesterday that the poor schools must get the rich schools, to help them. That was quite true, and unless the poor schools succeeded in getting the rich schools to help them, they could not be saved from bankruptcy. Therefore their Lordships would see that it was a matter of grave practical importance that every encouragement should be given to those who were rich to overcome their natural selfishness and to join a group of schools with a view of contributing from their abundant resources to supply the needs of the poorer schools. He thought it would contribute greatly to induce them to do. so if he could persuade the Government just to put on the face of the Bill a provision of the kind included in his Amendment, because it would mean that in their view this was the natural consequence of grouping. It would help them greatly, in case a selfish school tried to stand out, to be able to point to this Amendment, and state that it was contemplated by Parliament that such a thing as this was a natural thing to take place. That was the purpose for which he proposed that those words should be introduced. He did not say that these word conferred any new power, but they expressed a purpose, and they showed what Parliament thought was the normal state of things which ought to exist in a set of grouped schools. It was for this purpose alone that he asked the Government to do something which he thought was in entire conformity with the larger design of the Bill, namely, to set on the face of

827
this measure the desire that they would be glad to see that selfish and rich schools had a little pressure brought to bear upon them in order to induce them to contribute out of their abundance to the necessities of their poorer brethren.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 14, after 'education' insert 'and the body of managers of any grouped schools may receive and dispose of the pecuniary resources of any schools within the group.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Manchester.)
EARL NELSONsaid he did not exactly understand what was meant by "pecuniary resources." He imagined that "pecuniary resources" meant endowments. He knew a school which was endowed for the benefit of the parish in which it was situated, and he should be sorry if, under this Clause, any part of the endowment was taken from the parish and given to a group of schools. He thought that one of the most valuable things contained in this Bill was the provision which provided for the grouping of schools.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid he wished to answer at once the question which had been put to him. By "pecuniary resources" he did not contemplate the receipt of money coming from endowments, although it was possible, in some cases, that part of an endowment might come to the schools What he contemplated was, certain schools receiving a certain portion of the fees and subscriptions which would be made possible by this Bill. He contemplated that they would have to raise subscriptions, and he thought the Bill would require them to raise larger subscriptions than they had ever raised before. Those were the pecuniary resources to which he referred. He ventured to suggest to the noble Lord that all he asked was not any declaration that it should be the duty of a special set of managers to pay over any of their ordinary resources, but that it should be possible for the managers of a school to do so if it was lawful, for them to do it, and if they were disposed to do it. He would go no further than that. If it was lawful and they were so disposed, he only asked that it might be declared that the managers of a group of schools might
828
receive and dispose of their pecuniary resources. Of course, if a particular school refused to pay its resources into the hands of the managers of the grouped schools, there would be nothing to dispose of; but if they did choose to pay over what belonged to them into the hands of the managers of the grouped schools, they would have that sum to dispose of. It was a purely voluntary arrangement.
EARL STANHOPEsaid that he knew a district where this system had been pursued with very great success. He was strongly in favour of the proposal of the Government for the grouping of schools in country districts, because he thought that without this principle in many instances the small schools could not be kept up. He was a member of a County Council, and he hoped and trusted that in many rural districts there would be a grouping of the schools. He very much hoped that the Amendment proposed by his right rev. friend would be accepted, because he believed that certainly this Act could not be carried out by a large committee of a County Council. It would have to be largely administered by a delegation of powers as provided for in the Bill. He hoped that any money which might come to grouped schools would be administered by the managers of those schools for the benefit of the group which they had to administer. Hetrusted that His Majesty's Government would accept this Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid it appeared to him that the Amendment either carried them a great deal too far, or was entirely unnecessary, if it meant that they were to be at liberty to spend money subscribed distinctly for a particular school for the benefit of a group of schools it would require new legislation. He could not understand why they needed legislation of this kind to enable them to spend money which had been voluntarily subscribed to meet the needs of schools in a particular area according to the wishes of the donors. Did this proposal mean to take money belonging to a particular school in order to use it for the benefit of the whole group?
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTE: Only, of course, by the free consent of that particular school.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid that if it was intended to apply the money belonging to a particular school he should be inclined to think that such money would have to be devoted to the purposes which the donor intended. Either this Clause went too far, or it was entirely unnecessary.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid that if he followed the explanation which had been given correctly, it meant that where money was left for the benefit of a particular school in a particular parish, and the managers of that school felt so disposed, they might make a contribution out of that fund to the new group of schools.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid he did not intend that. The noble Duke had evidently pointed to a defect in his Amendment, because he had not included that possibility. He was only talking about such resources as it was lawful for the managers of a particular school to dispose of. If any of the resources had been designated in any deed for a particular body, it would not be in the power of the managers of a group of schools to dispose of them, and they must spend those resources as the trust deed directed; but if there be any part of the school funds available, as contemplated in one of the Clauses of this Bill, which might be diverted legally to any other purpose, then he desired that that part, and that part alone, might be disposed of by the managers. If the Governmeiit would accept his proposal in that way he should be glad to add words to achieve this object. He suggested that his Amendment should be amended as follows:—
"And the body of managers of any grouped schools may receive and dispose of the pecuniary resources of any school within the group which it may be lawful for such schools to devote to a general purpose."
THE DUKE of DEVONSHIRE: As far as I can gather, the Amendment, as amended, is quite unnecessary, and I think the Amendment in its original
830
shape is certainly open to the objections raised by my right rev. friend, the Bishop of Winchester.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid he would withdraw the Amendment if the Government could not see their way to accept it. He wished to ask whether he might take it that if there were any funds of the kind he had described which it was lawful for the managers of particular schools to pay into the hands of the general managers of a set of grouped schools, that those managers of the grouped schools might receive such funds and dispose of them? He was asking the Lord Chancellor this question. He was told that it was not necessary to insert the words he had moved in order to achieve the object he had last stated. If that were true he would very much like the Lord Chancellor to tell them so, if he could. If there was the slightest difficulty about the answer he would not press his question, because he knew what a terrible thing it was to ask for a legal opinion at a moment's notice. He only asked for a reply in case the learned and noble Earl had happened to think about it before.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I have not the smallest difficulty in answering the question, although I have not had the opportunity of considering the right rev. Prelate's observations before he was good enough to make them. It must be one of two things. Either the funds described as pecuniary resources belong to the grouped schools, or they do not. If they belong to them, they may spend them; if they do not, they cannot.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:—
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid he had put down this Amendment at the desire of the County Councils Association. Under sub-Section 2 of Clause 14 the County Council was bound to pay the money to the parishes concerned in aid of the rate which was to be levied on that parish. He did not want to interfere in any way with that provision, but he wished

831
to add at the end of the Clause the following words:—
"Provided that the local education authority may apply to the Board of Education for a scheme for the appropriation of any such money to educational purposes, and if a scheme shall be made such money shall be appropriated in accordance therewith.
He thought it was exceedingly probable that in many parishes, instead of desiring to have a certain sum, that they would prefer the money being appropriated to the establishment of scholarships in their schools or for some other useful educational purpose. He did not wish to make that a necessity; he only wished to give the County Council the power of applying to the Board of Education for a scheme for the appropriation of any such money for educational purposes, and if such scheme was approved of he desired that such money should be appropriated in the manner laid down in this Clause. He felt certain that His Majesty's Government would not object to the principle of this Clause for a very good reason—namely, that in 1896 they introduced in the Education Bill a Clause which gave the County Councils power to go to the Charity Commissioners for schemes in respect of educational endowments within their county. That Clause the County Councils Association would like introduced into this Bill. The Government did not introduce such a Clause, for reasons which he was not aware of, and he could not expect, in the present condition of the Bill, any large Clause of that kind to be introduced. At the same time a much smaller power in respect of these particular endowments might properly be introduced into the Bill at the end of Clause 14, and the effect of such an Amendment as he had moved, he thought, would be greatly to the advantage of education.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 7, after 'parish,' insert 'Provided that the local education authority may apply to the Board of Education for a cheme for the appropriation of any such money to educational purposes, and if a scheme shall be made such money shall be appropriated in accordance therewith."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he` was afraid that under the Bill some injustice might be done to a certain class of endowment relating to apprenticeship.
Those endowments, he fancied, in certain schools, had been transferred under Clause 23 of the Act of 1870, and were now in the possession of certain schools. If those endowments originally meant for apprenticeships were turned over to be utilised for structural repairs, they would be perverting the original intentions of the pious founders. Therefore, he ventured to make an appeal in favour of the noble Earl's Amendment.
EARL NELSONsaid that endowments were certainly given, among other things, to pay for a master and mistress in bad times, and there was no doubt that it was part of the original intention to keep the buildings in repair. Now that the parish had got a much better building, surely a part of such an endowment could be taken to keep the building in repair for even then it was benefiting education. In the case of those endowments he had referred to, he thought the most proper way of employing them would be to form them into scholarships for distinguished boys in the parish.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid the clause did not touch voluntary schools, but only schools for which provision was made by the Council.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not think the Clause can apply to endowments of the kind referred to by the noble Lord opposite. Sub-Section (2) applies to—
"Any money arising from an endowment and paid to a County Council for those purposes of a public elementary school for which provision is to be made by the Council, shall be credited by the Council in aid of the rate levied for the purposes of Part III. of the Act."
That is to say, for the maintenance of the school. I do not see how endowments of the kind referred to by the noble Lord would come under that description. The intention of this sub-Section, as it stands, is to secure that any endowments which go to the local authority, and not to the managers, shall be used to reduce the rates for elementary education in the parish in which the endowments have hitherto been enjoyed. That has been their effect up to now—that is, to relieve the educational expenses of the parish as far as they went; and there does not appear to me to beany sufficient

833
reason for diverting them from the object to which they have hitherto been applied.
EARL SPENCER: I should Iike to know if the noble Duke means that this Clause only applies to endowments specially devoted to diminishing the rates of certain parishes. I do not read it in that way. I should like to divide what I am going to say into two parts. With regard to the proposal of my noble friend, Lord Northbrook, I think it is a pity that endowments of this kind, not intended to relieve the rates, but to give help to those who wish to rise on the ladder of education, should be now devoted really to the relief of the rates or of the expenditure of the local education authority. I therefore should heartily sympathise with my noble friend in what he has proposed. but I have a doubt—and I put in a caeat here—as to whether this does not come within privilege. There is a question whether tje rates stand in a different position to money paid out of the Exchequer, but this money fromk endowments would relieve the general funds of the local authority, and the general funds are made up of both local and Imperial grants. So I rather doubt myself, and I put in a careat as to whether this Amendment does not involve a question of privilege. Therefore, I hesitate rather to support this proposal, although upon its merits I approve of it.
Amendment negatived.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he felt that he had trespassed a good deal upon their Lorships' attention during the Committee satge of this Bill, and he was afraid that unless he was able to persuade His Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment, it might still be his duty to divide the House If so, he hoped it would be the last time upon this stage that he should have thus to take up their time. This Amendment, to his mind, was a very important one. It was that they should strike out Clause 14 altogether, abd that they should insert the following new Clause:—
"All educational endwments. which before the passing of this Act were being used for the
834
purposes fo elementary education, shall be reserved for the benefit of meritorious children in the parish or district, and shall be dealt with by scheme to be drawn up by the Board of Education, in consulatation with the laocal education authority, 'and laid before Parliament in the usual way."
In his own poor diocese there was no less a sum than something between£2,000 and £3,000 a year, which was being used for these purposes, and those endowments he desired to see reserved. for the purposes he had indicated. He felt very strongly indeed upon this point. He felt that it was a matter of great importance that they should endeavour in this respect to hold on to the intentions of those generous donors and patrons who had given these benefaction. He did not dispute the power of the House to deal with benefactions of this kind but what he did say was that, under the circumstances, to do this would be both ungenerous and unwise. That was his point. He ventured the other day to say that if a Radical Government had introduced into Parliament any such proposal as this, both Houses of Parliament would have rung with denunciations of it. It would have been said on almost all these Benches again and again, that they were laying sacrilegious hands on the gifts of those pious founders, and that they ought to reserve those gifts for the classes of persons for whose benefit they were intended, and not appropriate them for the benefit of an entirely different class of persons. Feeling deeply as he did about this questioh, he was conscious that he might have spoken strongly the other day, and last night, in the very striking speech of the noble Lord Chancellor, he seemed to hear a strong and paerfervid rebuke for having used the strong language which he made the strpmg language which he made use of upon that occasion. That being so, he desired to recall to the House the actual words he used. He said on that occasion that if they appropriated endowments as under this Clause, they would be doing a damage to the reputation of the Church of England. They would be doing it in this way, that they would be exposing themselves to the remark that would certainly be made outside, that

835
they were adopting a policy which might be described as—
" The good old rule,
, the simple plan,
That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can."
He went on, perhaps in the heat of the argument, to say that this was a plan which, in the vernacular, in the language of the man in the street in Bethnal Green or anywhere else, was not uncommonly described as a "policy of grab." To that description he understood that the noble and learned Earl took objection. Well, perhaps he ought not to have introduced any of those vernacular phrases, and he apologised, but he could not withdraw the substance of his remarks. He desired, however, to say that he had no intention of attributing, either to the Government or to any portion of the Church which he served, anything like a deliberate and conscious pursuit of this policy which was so described, but he thought that they exposed themselves to such a description of it from the enemy outside, and he thought it was well to think of that.Fas est et ab hoste doceri, and their action was certain to be so described by the ordinary person in ordinary society. If he did not attribute any blame, or wish to indicate that either the Government or the Church had consciously and deliberately pursued this policy of appropriating what, to his mind, should have been reserved for other purposes, he did say that they had drifted into it just as they drifted in public life into a great many things which they did not beforehand, and of set purpose, deliberately intend to do. He might illustrate this point by a very simple and familiar case. Some three or four years ago they all heard the noble Marquess of Salisbury—and it would have been a great pleasure to them if he had been present to join in this discussion—say that with regard to South Africa they desired neither land, nor gold, nor diamonds; but now they had drifted till they had taken the land, and they would be very glad to get more of the gold and diamonds if they could. That was just a case of political drifting, and that was just what had happened, as he understood it, with regard to this appropriation of endowments and some other things in this Bill. That was his point—that they had drifted into this position, and he hoped that by adopting
836
his Amendment in respect of the Clause as it stood, they might drift out of the position in which they found themselves. He most sincerely hoped that this would be the case, because he had a very strong desire in regard to this matter. As he had ventured to refer to the speech of the noble and learned Earl, he should like to be permitted to add one other word, and thank him for another portion of his speech, and that was for that portion which dealt with the zeal and the poverty of our clergy. He thanked the noble and learned Earl very sincerely for that, and he would go back to his own diocese with the feeling that, after listening to that part of his speech, and to some other speeches such as that delivered by the noble Viscount behind him, there was dawning a better day with regard to clerical incomes. He could not help feeling that certain noble Earls in this House, like Earl Egerton, Viscount Cross, and Lord Ashcombe and others, to whom they owed a debt of gratitude in connection with the Queen Victoria Clergy Fund, must have rejoiced to hear those eloquent speeches, and he desired to thank them for helping so far. But with regard to this Amendment, if the Church acquiesced in the Clause as it stood—and he thought it would not, because he had good hopes that a great many of his friends on the Episcopal Bench would vote with him on this point—but if it acquiesced it would do itself harm, because acquiescence in an appropriation of this kind was a direct contradiction of the whole policy of the Church in the past with regard to the poor, because the Church had always been the great friend and benefactor of the poor, and therefore he contended that they would be going against their natural policy if they accepted endowments of this kind which, to such a large extent, were intended for the benefit of the poor. Therefore he trusted and believed that his brethren would stand by him in this matter. Let them look at the Amendment for a moment. The Clause, as it stood in the Bill, took the benefactions of generous and pious founders and used them for an entirely different purpose. He did not dispute the legality of that proceeding, but he ventured to think that the generous and wise method to pursue in this matter was to look upon these benefactions as belonging to those districts

837
from which respectable tradesmen and others had gone out and made their fortunes, and who had been moved to make these benefactions in order to give opportunities to village children which they did not enjoy themselves. A great many of their benefactions had sprung up in that way, and he he'd that the generous and the wisest thing to do would be to reserve these benefactions, so that the class of children ten1 whom they were intended would still continue to enjoy, by virtue of them, benefits which they could not otherwise enjoy. That, he contended, contained the kernel of the whole matter, and so he would like to treat this as a part of the inalienable estate of the poorer classes, which he thought would be for the best interest of the nation at large. Let their Lordships observe the sort of inequality they would be guilty of if they allowed this Clause to stand as it now stood. In two parishes in his own diocese, which were equally poor, they had existing side by side this state of things, namely, that one had got probably endowments amounting to£20,£30,or£50 a year, while the other parish had not got one penny. Under the present circumstances they were bound to do exactly the same thing with regard to public education for both those parishes. Why should they not leave those benefactions for the benefit of those children for whom they were intended in order that those children might have opportunities that they could not otherwise have got? But there was another point. Those poor children would not be the beneficial res under this Bill if the Clause were left standing as it now stood. They would not enjoy the benefits of all those pious gifts which had been handed down to them. Who would enjoy, undcrthisBill, the£2.000 or£3,000 a year in his own diocese which had been left in this way? Why, to a great extent, the richer classes. He ventured to say that there was no body ui men in England who would be to such a large extent the bene-liciaires under these endowments as the Members of their Lordships' House. He knew that there was not a single Member of this House who would like to feel that he was putting into his own private pocket these benefactions of£5,£10,£20.or£70 a year by way relief from his rates which were intended for the meritorious and poor
838
children of his parish and neighbourhood. Therefore he had good hope that a great many of their Lordships would prefer his Amendment to the Clause as it stood. In conclusion, he would venture to add a word of thanks for their Lordships' kind indulgence, but, as he had said already more than once, he felt very 1 deeply and strongly on this subject. He did so because from the circumstances of his life, which had been very different from the circumstances of most of their Lordships' lives, he had been led to think a good deal about this subject for many reasons. Amongst others, he would not have had the privilege of standing in that House at all but for the benefits of endowments like these. Perhaps some of their Lordships would say that that would have been no great loss, but he would go one step further and say that they would never have had the venerable Primate in that House—and how delighted they would have been to have him there that night—but for the benefit of such endowments. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would meet with sympathetic and favourable consideration at their Lordships' hands, as he felt sure that it would do so if they realised to the full what a generous and wise act they would be doing.
Amendment moved—
To leave out Clause 14, and to insert the following new Clause instead thereof:—
" All educational endowments, which beforethe passing of this Act were being- used for the purposes of elementary education, shall liereserved for the benefit of meritorious children in the parish or district, and shall be dealtwith by scheme to be drawn up by the Board of Education in consultation with the local1 education authority and laid before Parliament in the usual way."—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL
said he did not desire to speak of this as an appropriation at all. A number of these endowments were by the trust deeds confined to elementary schools, so that in that respect he could not regard them as being appropriated within the meaning of that Clause, the endowments having been applied, and properly applied, to relieve the charges in the form of subscriptions or otherwise by which the schools were maintained. They would not be in any way

839
transferred to the particular funds spoken about. But he quite agreed with the Bishop of Hereford that the course proposed would be a very wise, and not merely a generous, course in the present state of education. The one principle of this Bill which had overruled everything was that education should be "o-ordinated with a view of making the elementary schools a ladder from the bottom to the top which would enable all scholars to go from the elementary schools to the universities. Fifty years ago he was one of those who took part in the University Commission. That Commission thought it right to give up every kind of local scholarship for the purpose of promoting some more liberal kind of education. Some of them now thought that some of the local interest then sacrificed ought to be restored, and that local subscriptions ought to be reestablished for the purposes for which they used to be employed, but which at that time were not thought of so much importance as larger measures of higher education It might be thought that that was too big a change, but seeing that there was this fund standing as endowments, and regarded, therefore, in everybody's view as a separate fund with such contributions as came from the taxes and the rates, he thought the endowment fund should have some special use given to it, and not be swamped in the general funds.
LORD BUEGHCLEREsaid the Clause of the Government touched the same peculiar class of endowments of which he had already spoken, and it appeared that he was perfectly correct in what he had stated with regard to those endowments. The noble Duke had said that voluntary schools were not affected by this provision—that this only concerned public elementary schools for which no provision has been made—namely, non-voluntary schools. He (Lord Burghclere) i was referring to a peculiar class of endowments which were transferred under Clause 23 of the Act of 1870, and which therefore did not come under this provision.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid it would clear the atmosphere a little if the noble Duke would answer a concrete case which he would put. An ancestress of his, Mary
The Lord Bishop of Southwell.
Lister and her husband, had endowed i a certain village school with property i which now produced£43 a year. The school wasa very small one, costing only£50 a year; therefore only£7 was left for private subscriptions in order to get the grant. It was a good school, and had always got the grant.He asked what became of the money of Mary Lister and her husband under this Bill? The money was devoted to the education of children. Would that £43 a year have to be pooled? The village would be rated to the county like other folk, and he supposed the£43 would be thrown into the general melting-pot. He did not object, but as a matter of fact it would be pooled for the good of of the whole district. That, it seemed to him, was to a great extent defeating the objects of the "pious founder."
*THE EARL or HALSBCJRYsaid one mode of discussing this question with clearness was to see what the Clause was in respect of which the Amendment was, moved. The noble Lord Lord Burghclere had apparently not read the Clause with sufficient clearness, probably because he had been diverted by the somewhat discursive observations of the right rev. Prelate. The Clause began—
" Nothing in this Act shall affect any endowment, or the discretion of any trustees in respect thereof: provided that, where under the trusts or other provisions affecting any endowment the income thereof innst lie applied in whole or in part for those purposes of a public elementary school for which provision is to be made by the local education-authority, the whole uf the income or the part thereof, as the case may be, shall be paid to. that authority, and in case part only of such income must be so applied, and there is nc provision under the said trusts or provisions for determining the amount which represents that part, the amount shall be determined in. case of difference between the parties concerned by the Board of Education."
That was perfectly plain—that for which the money was given being now supplied by the local education authority, the endowment would be transferred to that authority; and so far from there being an abandonment of anything provided by this pious ancestress, the local authority now came in and supplied it. It was really another mode of doing the same thing. With reference to the speech of the right rev. Prelate, it was not worth while to recur to their former debates, but he was very glad indeed to

841
recognise that the right rev. Prelate did not mean what his words on a former coeasion seemed to imply. Nothing could be more agreeable than to hear that when the right rev. Prelate said that the policy of grab was bad enough in China and Africa, but that when he found it in the Church of Christ it was intolerable, what he meant to say was that the attitude of the Church might expose the Church to the unjust suspicion of adopting the policy of grab; he was very glad indeed to have that explanation.
EARL CAERINGTON,referring to Humberton's Charity in Lincolnshire, understood that that charity would go entirely to the purposes to which it was now devoted, and no part of it would be pooled.
*THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It is given to the credit of that parish.
EARL CARRINGTON: Entirely for the purposes of the parish?
*THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Entirely.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid if there had been a provision that where a school had an endowment the local authority should not undertake the whole maintenance, but only so far as the endowment was insufficient, it might be said that the endowment was still carrying on the work of education, although practically the result would be the same; but in cases where the endowment was left for -education nothing would be done for education that would not lie done if it did not exist. It would only relieve the burden on the ratepayers, which was not the object contemplated by the founder. He did not understand the meaning of the words in the Amendment "shall be reserved for the benefit." Presumably that referred to educational benefits. In many cases the intention of the founder was not so much to benefit elementary higher education generally as to give an opportunity for more education for children of special talent among the poor. That was an idea that took root much earlier than ideas of general education, and he imagined that a very large number of endowments which had been applied to elementary education had really been so applied by an abuse of the original intention of the founder. On these
842
grounds, though he had been unable to agree with him on other parts of the Bill, he would be bound to support the right rev. Prelate if he pressed the Amendment to a division.
*EARL SPENCER: The noble and learned Lord, referring to the case put by Lord Ribblesdale, said that the position of the parish with regard to Mary Lister's fund would be practically the same, because, although the£43 a year was spent on education, it would go in aid of the rates of the parish. But surely that is not the case. The £43 will go to relieve the ratepayers all over the county.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: By sub-Section 2 it is given to the overseers of the parish.
EARL SPENCER: It certainly appears to me that it would relieve the whole of the rates of the county, and not the particular parish; I merely rose to make the position clear. I entirely agree with the right rev. Prelate on this matter, but I am afraid that I cannot vote with him, because, though the noble Duke quoted what I said the other flay about the House of Commons being capable of taking care of itself, I do not like to put the House of Lords in the position of infringing the privileges of the other House; I think such a position is undignified, and I am clearly of opinion that this comes within the privileges of the other House. Therefore, although I entirely agree with this proposal, I shall riot feel myself able to vote for it.
*The EARL OF HALSBURY: Perhaps I may read the Sub-Section, because I think there is a misapprehension about it—
"Any money arising from an endowment and paid to a County Council for those purposes of a public elementary school for which provision is to be made by the Council, shall be credited by the Council in aid of the rate levied for the purposes of Part 3 of this Act, in the parish or parishes which in the opinion of the Council are served by the school for the purposes of which the sum is paid, or if the Council so direct shall be paid to the overseers of the parish or parishes in the proportions directed by the Council, and applied by the over.-eers in aid of the poor rate levied in the parish."
On Question, "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill," resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 15:—
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD, in moving the next Amendment, said he need not trouble the House with any arguments beyond this, that while he had considerable sympathy with the Clause which reserved to the owners of school buildings the rent of the schoolhouse—for there was a good deal to be said for reserving that rent, because it was part of the salary of the masters, and the salary of the masters was given over to the authorities responsible for the maintenance—he also had sympathy with the contention that only structural repairs should remain a burden on the owners of the buildings, because the other repairs had hitherto been included in what was known as Form 9 of the Returns of the Education Department, and therefore had been included in the maintenance expenses of the school. In as much as the public had taken over the expense of maintenance, it was reasonable that they should take over the expense under Form 9. He, however, saw no similar grounds for this reservation, and therefore he would be glad if it could be dropped, because he held that the Church ought not to claim anything beyond what she had a definite title to.
Amendment moved—
" In page 9,line 11, to leave out from ' pay' to the end of the Clause, and insert ' all such fees to the local education authority in aid of the rate levied for the purposes of tins Act.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTERsaid there were certain facts with reference to school fees which ought to be brought before the House. If this Amendment were carried the schools which would most suffer would be the Wesleyan schools, and those, he was afraid, had but few representatives in this House. From a letter from one of His Majesty's counsel which appeared in Mondays' Times, it appeared that out of 458 Wesleyan schools fees were taken in 307, or over 60 per cent, of such schools, and the total sum produced was £29,981, or a payment of 4s. 81/2d, per child per annum. The next class of schools to suffer would be the British i schoolsd. The British schools, and other schools which are called miscellaneous when grouped together, had again but
844
few representatives in this House. Out of 1,052 British and miscellaneous schools school fees are taken in 330, or 31 percent., the total sum received being £31 161, or 2s.101/4d. per child per annum. Compared with these bodies the Church of England has received a very small sum in proportion. Out of the total of 11,731 Church of England schools fees are only taken in 1,750; that is, about 15 per cent., and the total amount received by the Church of England from such fees is £121,315, giving an annual payment of only Is.31/2d. per child in every school-pence paying school. The Roman Catholic schools had a smaller proportion still. Out of 1,053 Roman Catholic schools pence are taken in 113, that is only 9 per cent, of the whole number, the total sum produced being £7,163, or only 63/4d. per child per annum. The Church of England would lose a. small sum. Suppose that the fees were divided, and went half to the managers and half to the local authorities, the Church of England would receive under the Bill £60,500supposing the rate of fees in the future to be what it had been in the past. Therefore the loss to the Church of England, if that sum were divided amongst all the counties of England would be a very small loss compared with that of Wesleyan and British schools. He thought a word ought to be said on behalf of these Wesleyan and British schools, and that it should be pointed out that if this Amendment were carried it would hit these schools very hard indeed. Another point was this. The payment for fees had been gradually reduced. In the year 1897 there were 735,142 fee-paying scholars;there had been a gradual reduction every year; next year it was 706,000, the next 670,000, the next 649,000, the next 644,000. There was a Clause in this Bill by which the local authorities would be able to cease these fees altogether if they chose. Undoubtedly, therefore, there would be a very considerable reduction, and the sums ' hitherto received under the head of fees would, in years to come, be very much smaller than they had been in the past. It had been stated twice by the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, that these fees were considered a considerable asset—as though the Church of England were a Corporation which was able to

845
pool all the receipts for fees and endowments, and as though it were not necessary, therefore, to raise any large sum by subscriptions for the purposes for which the managers would have to raise funds. He would remind the House that the fees which would be returned under this Bill to the managers were strictly ear-marked for the schools from which those fees were taken. They could not be pooled for general purposes; they were simply for the schools and parishes concerned. Therefore the asset, whatever it might be, would be a very small asset. He would be unable to agree with the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:—
Amendment made—
" In page 9, line 21 after ' managers,' to insert ' or as to control by the local education authority.' "—(The Lord President.)
EARL CARRINGTON: In moving the rejection of this Clause I need not retain the House while I state my reasons. The Clause relates to schools attached to institutions, and runs as follows:—
" The local education authority may maintain, as a public elementary school under the provisions of this Act, but shall not be required so to maintain any Marine school, or any school which is part of, or is held in the premises of, any institution in which children are boarded, but their refusal to maintain such a school shall not render the school incapable of receiving a Parliamentary grant, nor shall the school, if not so maintained, be subject to the provisions of this Act as to the appointment of managers."
Then will follow the words just added on the motion of the noble Duke. As regards Marine schools, there are only five of them in existence;they are looked after by special legislation, and they are quite able to take care of themselves, and there is no earthly reason, as far as I am informed, why these marine schools should have been brought within the provisions of the Act. Then there is Greenwich Hospital, with its great endowment of £7,000 a year, and there are one or two others in the same category. The House knows well that this Clause was rushed in in another
846
place at the very last moment and the House was informed that this Clause was to protect local authorities against the schools composed of children collected from all parts' of the kingdom. To save time, I would like to ask the noble Duke a question, to which he can answer yes or no—whether these schools will be subject to all the conditions imposed on non-provided schools.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I believe so.
EARL CARRINGTON: This Clause refers to orphanages and institutions, and they include those semi-industrial schools to which laundries are attached, and which were intended to make very considerable profit. I do not think that that is the kind of school that ought to come under the provisions of the Act. The Marine schools are well provided for already. I have been told that those who manage these industrial schools say they do not intend that they shall be brought under the Act in any way. How that may be I have no means of knowing, but I may quote the words of the Lord Bishop of Manchester the other night when he stated that what people could do they would probably do, and therefore under these circumstances I beg to move the omission of Clause 16.
Amendment moved,—
"To leave out Clause 16."—(Earl Carrington.)
*EARL SPENCER: I sympathise to a great extent with what Lord Carririgton has said, but I am not quite sure as to what the meaning of the Clause is. I would like to ask what is meant by "Marine schools." I rather think that that applies to some schools which were put under the Education Board when I had the honour to be in the place of the noble Earl opposite (Lord Selborne). We had a class of schools at Gosport and other places which were paid for out of the Admiralty Vote, and were directly under the management of the Admiralty. The scholars were the children of Marines. I do not know whether this word "marine" applies to them. These schools were good schools, and I thought, and the Board that I had the honour to preside over thought, that they would be

847
very much better managed if put under the education inspectors and received the Government grant in the ordinary way, and that was done. I should be rather sorry if anything could interfere with the present management of these schools. I have a sort of feeling that already a great many of the higher schools in large towns have received grants for voluntary purposes and become primary schools, and that they are included also. I confess that I have some lurking feeling in favour of those schools, and I am certainly not at all strongly impressed with the desirability of omitting this Clause.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (the Earl of SELBORNE): The schools referred to here as "Marine schools" are Royal Marine schools, and they have no connection with the Greenwich Hospital or the Greenwich Hospital lunds. The Board of which the noble Earl was First Lord introduced the change in our administration which he has described to the House. The change has worked most admirably, and the present Board only desire to preserve that system.
LORD NELSON: I should be very sorry if these schools were removed from the Bill, because we have a similar school, the Royal Patriotic Asylum, which has all the grants that an elementary school would get. I do not know what would happen to that school if any alteration were made. For many years we have been receiving the grant, and have received from His Majesty's Inspectors great credit for the high level at which we are teaching the children.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My noble friend, Lord Selborne, has stated, in reply to the noble Earl, what these Marine schools are. I am not sure whether he stated that while the Admiralty contributes the amount required to defray their expenditure, in addition to the annual and fee grants, a proportion of their expenditure is defrayed by the Education Department, and that is an arrangement which it is proposed to continue. As the schools, however, do not serve any local needs it would be inequitable to compel the locality to maintain them. If this Clause had not been inserted in the Bill the Education
Earl Spencer.
848
Department would no longer have contributed to the support of these schools. There is very much the same reason for treating in the same way the class of schools referred to in the Bill. These are boarding institutions, and the children in them are of the same class as those that attend other elementary schools; therefore there is no reason why they should not receive the annual grant of the Education Department like other elementary schools; but, as they do not necessarily benefit the children of any particular locality, it would be unfair to compel the locality to maintain them as if they were ordinary elementary schools.
EARL CARRINGTON: I would like to repeat my question. Are these schools going to be subject to all the conditions imposed on non-provided schools? That is rather an interesting question, and I should like to get an answer.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: If they receive rate aid.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Their Lordships adjourned at Eight of the clock and resumed at Nine.
Clause 18:—
*LORD COLERIDGE*LORD COLERIDGE, in moving to omit the words in sub-Section (2), "unless in the case of a county, the Council shall otherwise determine," said: I have some hope that the Government will look with favour upon this Amendment. I propose to insure that the educat on committee appointed by the County Council shall have a majority of its members upon that committee. 1 do not quite understand why there is an important difference made in the case of the County Council and that of the Council of a County Borough, or the Council of a Borough of 10,000, or the Council of an Urban District; because in those cases, as I understand the Bill, the majority of the education committee will have to be composed of the majority of the Council appointed, while in the sole instance of the County Council it is

849
provided that that is not necessary unless the County Council so determine. I understand that originally the Bill did not contain those words, and that they were put in on Report by Sir William Anson. It is rather important to draw attention to the position of these education committees. It was at first thought that the education committee would be paramount, because the Bill, as it was originally drawn, said that the County Council should "act through" the education committee. It was then thought advisable to change those words into the word "establish"; the County Council is now to "establish an education committee." "Establish" is a different word from "appoint," which is the usual word. I should like to know from the Government whether they agree with the view I hold, that in consequence of the word "establish," the education committee will have very large powers in the matter. It is quite true that they will not have powers of rating, but with the exception of that they will practically dominate the education of the committees. Under those circumstances it does seem an extraordinary thing that the rule should provide that in all cases the majority shall be members of the Council, except in the case of the County Council. These education committees have got to start the thing, and the County Council is the only body with any representative authority. I can quite understand that, this work being novel and some what burdensome, it may be that members of the County Council may be desirous of avoiding, reasonably, the burden placed upon them by Parliament, and they may seek to avoid being "placed on the education committees; and we may very well have the education committee with a very small minority, and, so far as the Bill is concerned, it may be possible that there may be no members of the County Council on the committee. That was admitted by the Attorney General in the House of Commons. I do not say it will happen—possibly it will not; but at any rate, there is no assurance in the Bill that there will be any members of the County Council on the committee. It seems to me that the Government ought to meet that in the same way. I understand that the Amendment I'now move is
850
supported by my noble friend, Lord North brook, on behalf of the County Councils' Association. I cannot see that it will do the slightest harm, and I hope it will be accepted by the noble Duke.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 13, to leave out from 'Council' to the end of the paragraph."—(The. Lord Coleridge.)
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The noble and learned Lord said that he thought it might be possible that the County Councils would desire to support the proviso that, with their consent, the Education Committee need not contain a majority of the Council. The history of what has taken place in this matter will satisfy your Lordships that there is no foundation for that idea. In the original Bill, as introduced by His Majesty's Government, there was absolutely no representation at all in respect of the administration of education. There was representation to the extent that the County Councils (who are representative bodies) possessed the rating power—they had to supply the money; but in respect of the whole administration of education from the top to the bottom of the Bill as introduced, there was no representation of the people at all. That matter was considered by the County Councils' Association at the general meeting in May last, and we came to the unanimous conclusion that our support of the Bill was to beon the condition that the education committee should have a majority of members of the Council who appointed it. Now, we have supported the Government Bill loyally, and I certainly am surprised that at the last moment, on Report in the other House, the County Council are put in the position of having the power of appointing an education committee which shall not contain a majority of their number. For some reason of which I am quite unaware, on the Report stage the boroughs—I suppose they had more influence in the other House than the counties—had this power taken away from them. The boroughs did not want the power of being able to appoint education committees not containing a majority of their number. But, so far from there being any desire on the part of the County Councils of England that this proviso should remain in the Bill, it

851
is our great desire that it shall be omitted. I consider that the proviso itself is objectionable on principle, for this reason: there should be a representative element in the administration of education, and the proviso as it now stands enables any County Council to administer education without any representative element. I know very well, as does everyone who has had anything to do with County Councils, that the whole business of education must be carried on by the education committees. The Councils have power to delegate to those committees the whole of the business of education, with the exception of supplying the money. Therefore, if this proviso remains in the Bill, the whole of the administration of education throughout the country may be carried on—in counties— without any representative element. I would like to put to the Government what they have done by inserting this proviso. They have enabled anyone who objects to the Bill to say, and truly say, that, with this proviso in the Bill, there is power to carry on the administration of education without any representative element. In the first place, the County Councils do not want this proviso; secondly, it is wrong in principle; and thirdly, it would be immensely to the advantage of the Government, as a matter of argument, to omit the proviso.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: It is rather unfortunate that, for the second time in these debates, I find myself in disagreement with the noble Earl who has just sat down. Speaking only my own private opinion, I should like to advance one argument against what he has said. I suppose it would be an extreme case—one which would practically never occur—where a County Council would appoint a committee without a single county councillor upon it. What this proviso allows is that the personal interest which county councillors have in the education committees should be comparatively slight. One of the great dangers, as it seems to me, of the provisions of this Bill, is that County Council elections will or may be conducted upon educational and denominational questions, which I think will introduce an element of controversy into County Council elections that may be
Earl of Northbrook
852
very mischievous. Further, we shail probably not get on the Councils the right men; instead of men who are good upon the subject of roads, bridges, sanitation, and so forth, we may have men who are just educationists. Therefore, if this Bill is to work well, I should have thought it wise to give County Councils at any rate the power of so far diminishing the direct interest which individual candidates may have in getting on the Council by enabling the Councils to elect a committee with a small number, comparatively, of councillors upon them. The noble Earl has pointed out that if county councillors are not properly represented on these committees, practically the committees will not be representative of the ratepayers. I would suggest that although that is perhaps technically correct, it is really not so. Practically, the County Council are paramount over these education committees; they must act through them, but they are paramount over them. It is true they have the liberty to delegate their powers to the committees, but they are not compelled to do so, and if the education committee did not properly represent the views of the Council (that Council being representative of the ratepayers), I am certain that the Council would take good care that the committee adopted their views or were replaced by those who would do so. I think the other danger is very much greater— that you will have County Council elections too much influenced by educational questions, and that you will not get the right men on the Councils. I therefore trust that the Government will not give way on this subject. I do not know whether I am in order now, or whether it should come up on an Amendment of my own later on, but I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord who has moved this Amendment, What is the particular reason why this power is confined to the County Council, or, rather—I would put it in the opposite way—why should not the Borough Councils and Urban Councils be allowed the same liberty of choosing whether they will have a majority of their own members on these committees? Do the words in this paragraph—
"(a) Unless in the case of a county, the Council shall otherwise determine,"

853
govern the preceding words or paragraph, or not? In other words, is a County Council at liberty, if it chooses not, to appoint a majority of the committee, as well as not to make that majority members of the Council; or is it confined to appointing at least a majority? That is not clear as it stands, and I suggest that the matter should be dealt with, either now or on Report.
*EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I feel very strongly on this matter, which is one in which I take the greatest interest. I have always maintained that one of the blots in the Bill was this. The Government have said that the ratepayers were represented by the County Council, who were an elective body, and therefore that answered what we consider a strong constitutional point—namely, the necessity that when the rating power existed in one body the governing body should be there also. But I say that that is not the case in practice; that the tendency of the Bill as drawn was to push away from the actual representative bodies, the County Councils, the duty of conducting and controlling education, by devolving that upon a committee of their own. That is why I have always said that, owing to the fact that the County Council will have a consultative body of their own members, this representation of the ratepayers on the County Councils is delusive and a sham. My belief is this: I am speaking particularly of a rural County Council, to which my noble friend's Amendment specially refers. I have said before that these County Councils govern districts of enormous area. The members of the committees of the County Council come from a very great distance. I know in my own county I am always surprised at the regularity with which county councillors attend the committees and the Council of my county from a great distance. But I assure your Lordships that they have very great difficulty, and the county councillors are put to very great exertion and strain and expenditure, by having continually to come up to the centre to deal with the various matters that now coinc before the County Council. That strain and difficulty will be enormously increased by this great work of education being put upon them. What will they do? They will adopt the power which these words give them, and will relieve
854
this strain upon them by delegating their powers to a consultative committee. That, to my mind, is a very serious thing. I attach immense importance to the body that is to be the educational authority, and to have the practical working and administration of the education in a county, being representative of the ratepayers. If the County Council delegate these powers, practically the management and control of education will be in the hands, not of real representatives, but of delegates of the real representatives—namely, the County Council. I object to this entirely. I believe it will be doing great harm to education in the country, and I believe that in order to get thorough education in the country it is of the utmost importance that all the ratepayers and representatives in the county should take a deep interest in the matter, which interest cannot be stimulated more than by their being made the electors of a representative body. I believe the reason why this exception has been put in is on account of the difficulty which, no doubt, will be thrown on County Councils by this extra work. At the same time, I feel so strongly about it that I very much object to this plan, and I think it most important that the same limitation should be put on the rural County Councils as is now put on the boroughs—namely, that they must elect a majority of their own members on the education committee. The noble Duke who spoke last referred to County Council elections. I sincerely hope that County Council elections will not turn on educational grounds. I have always rejoiced very much at the absence of sharp Party lines in the election of County Councils, and I am very much afraid that the Bill as it now stands in many respects will overturn that happy state of things, and that there will be considerable acrimony and excitement in the elections, because the various parties, actuated, I am sorry to say, by religious feelings, will try to get possession of the County Council in order to promote their own views. I regret that very much indeed; but I feel very strongly that if my noble friend's Amendment is carried some of these difficulties may be overcome, and that if the County Councils are obliged to put a majority of their own representatives on these Committees, some of the difficulties referred to may be met. Though I object, as your LordshipS know, to the general principles of the Bill, I

855
should sincerely rejoice if His Majesty's Government would so far alter it in this respect, and regard the necessity of putting on rural County Councils the same obligation as they have put on the county boroughs, by insisting that on the education committees the majority shall be members of the County Council.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYAt the present moment, except in the case of a County Council, the majority of the education committee must be members of the Council. Now, the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord opposite would involve that the majority of the Committee in the case of a County Council also should be members of the Council. The Bill as it originally stood only referred to the Council appointing the majority of the committee. The noble and learned Lord is quite correct when he says that my hon. friend Sir William Anson, in the House of Commons, proposed that the majority should also be members of the Council unless the Council otherwise determined. At the same time, however, I cannot but think that, while I am defending this Clause, we should consider the various circumstances of the local authorities of the country, and, therefore, it would be unwise to make any hard and fast declaration such as would be made if this Amendment were carried. As far as I can judge from the speeches of the two noble Lords who have spoken, the County Councils which they represent as chairmen do not seem to have arrived at the same conclusion.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I may be allowed to explain that I was not speaking for my County Council at all; I was only expressing my individual opinions.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: What I said was that at a meeting of the County Councils Association it was determined that the support given to the Bill should be on condition that the education committee should be composed in the majority of members of the Council.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Earl speaks undoubtedly with authority; but at the present moment we are informed that there are County Councils who think that it would be impossible to carry on the work thrown upon them
856
by this Bill if they are required to have a majority of their own members on the Committee.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Has the noble Marquess any objection to telling us the names of those County Councils?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not know that I can give the names, but that is the information given to the Government.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My impression is that the whole of the counties agreed to this Resolution.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I will not pit my authority against that of the noble Earl, but the Government are under the belief that the County Councils, as a whole, would not altogether approve of this Amendment of the noble and learned Lord opposite. There is one word I should like to say with regard to what the noble and learned Lord said. He seems to think that the education committee would dominate the situation. I question that. The Council can act absolutely as it pleases, and can override or can ignore the declarations of the committee if it chooses.
EARL SPENCER: It can, but it will not.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is not for the Government to say what they can or will do, but they can override or ignore the decisions of the committee if they choose. My noble friend Lord Northbrook, asked why the boroughs are dealt with separately from the counties. My noble friend knows that the areas dealt with by the boroughs are very much more compact and much easier to deal with than those over which the County Councils preside. Without saying any more, I think I am justified, in spite of what the noble Lords who represent County Councils say, in asking your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think the noble Earl (Northbrook) stated the case for his Amendment extremely clearly and with great force. My noble friend on behalf of the County Councils Association stated that the County Councils of England were in favour of this Amendment. The noble Marquess opposite was

857
challenged to say what were the Councils chat objected, and he found himself absolutely unable to reply. The noble Marquess argued that the reason the County Councils should be excepted rom the Bill is that the counties are vider districts, and that there is a difficulty in the members getting about the county, and therefore it would be lesirable to get outsiders to serve on these committees. I do not think that is a very sound argument. It seems to one it would be easy to find in any County Council a certain number of suitable persons who would be able to attend to this particular work. More ever, I would point out that in another largely responsible for any difficulty which arises upon this head. In another place the Government refused to allow the necessary travelling expenses of members of these committees. I think hat that was a most reasonable proposal. It seems to me that when members of the Council are travelling about the county doing the work of the committees and of the Council, it is a seasonalbe thing to expect that their expenses should be paid, at least, their out-of-pocket expenses. The noble Duke said he was afraid that if the last words of this paragraph were omitted it would cause the County Council selections to turn largely on the question of education. I do not see how that would be he cases if these words were omitted more than it is under the present circumstances. After all, any given county Council would not have to appoint a very large number of members to serve on these committees. If my noble friend sesires to see educational experts and thers seving on the committees, the emaining sub-Sections of this Clause give glenty of opportunity for that. Many of us on this side of the House feel that it is a this particular direction that the Bill us greatly wanting, and that by the profesions of this Clause the representation of the education committees is made exceedingly and unnecessarily indirect. We believe it is desirable that for the important work of the County Councils he representation should be direct, and chat the men who have to perform that work should be brought into direct touch with the electors of the county. For
858
these reasons, I very strongly support the Amendment of my noble and learned friend.
*LORD HARRIS: The noble Earl opposite said that all the members of the County Councils' Association had agreed in May that majority of the education committee should be memners of the Council.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I said that that was the condition on which the Association supported the Government Bill.
*LORD HARRIS: I suppose if that was a unanimous vote, the representative of my own county must have voted for it; but I think that subsequent considerations have altered the opinions of that member, for I am given to understand that the scheme that is being prepared in my county does not contemplate anything like one committee, but rather eighteen or twenty committees. If there are to be anything like that number, it will obviously be impossible for the County Concil to put on to such a number of committees a majority of their own members. Under those circumstsnces, I think it is wiser to have that elasticity in the Clause which the Government have provided, and which is so necessary for the working of an Act which at the best is not very easy to caryy into effect.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I may point out that the sixth sub-Section of the first schedule provides—
" That an education committee may, subject to any directions of the Council, appoint such and so many sub-committees, consisting either wholly or partly of members of the committee, as the committee thiks fit."
Therefore the difficulty my noble friend suggests could not arise.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not quite understand why the noble Lords opposite attach so much importance to this Amendment. If the County Councils are as unanimous as Lord Northbrook thinks, they will have nothing whatever to do but to appoint on each of their committees a majority of their own members. I have not the smallest doubt that my noble friend, who speaks with so much authority as the chairman of the County

859
Councils' Association, correctly represents to us the feeling which existed in that body when the subject was discussed in the summer of the present year, but undoubtedly we have received—not, I admit, officially, but wo have received—from county members with whom many members of the Government are in constant communication, representations that in some counties, at all events, very great difficulty will be experienced in constituting these committees, if we insist upon a majority of the members of the committees being members of the Council. I am told, for instance—I am not absolutely certain of the fact—that a representation has been received from the county of Cornwall, which is a very large county, and where the distances are very great, that that Council must appoint, not one committee, but two committees, dividing the county into two areas, and that it would be absolutely impossible under the conditions sought to be imposed upon them to appoint those two committees. The principle of the Bill, and what we should desire, is that in all these local authorities the popularly-elected representatives

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E (L. Chancellor.)

Stamford, E.

Braye,L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Stanhope, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Colchester, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Waldegrave, E.[Teller.]

Congleton, L.

Northumberland, D.

Wharncliffe, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Wellington, D.

Dunmore, L. (V. Doune)

Churchill, V.[Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Falkland, V.

Erskine, L.

Camden, M.

Falmouth, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Hertford, M.

Halifax, V.

Forester, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Llandaff. V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Winchester, M.

Harris, L.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Hatherton, L.

Abingdon, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Iveagh, L.

Denbigh, E.

Ely, L, Bp.

Kenyon, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Liehfield, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Komtore.)

Feversham, E.

Manchester, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Ludlow, L.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Down-shire.)

Southwell, L. Bp.

Middleton, L. North, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Liehtield, E.

Ashborune, L.

Redesdale, L.

Londes borough, E.

Balfour, L.

Rowton, L.

Nelson, E.

Barrymore, L.

Saltoun, L.

Onslow, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Seaton, L.

Romney, E.

Belper, L.

Wimborne, L.

Selborne, E.

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Camperdown, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Burghclere, L.

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Spencer, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Morley, E.

Coleridge, L. [Teller.]

Northbrook, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Corkand Orrcry.)

Denman, L.

should be in the majority, and where this can undoubtedly be done without difficulty and without inconvenience, as in the case of the boroughs, we insists, and we propose to c ontinue to insist, on the majority consisting of popularly-elected members. Bus the case of couties is evidently very diferent, and although I quite admit that it may be taken to be an argumenast, so far as it goes, against this Bill, we are informed, and we think that it is a possibility, that County Councils may have great difficulty in constituting the committees they desire if this clasticity is denied them. County Councils, I think, are bodies of sufficient authority and sufficient intelligence to be entrusted with the composition of their committees, and if the Councils are so unanimous as the noble Lords opposite think they are on this subject, I do not see why you cannot leave it to constitute their committees entirely or mainly out of the members of their own body.
On Question "Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause," their Lordships divided:— Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 20.

Herries, L.

Reay, L.

Sudley, L. (E.Arran.)

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ribbesdale, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Monkswell, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Wenlock, L.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I should like to ask the noble Duke if he will answer the question I put a short time ago—whether the words at the end of this paragraph, "unless in the case of a county, the Council shall otherwise determine," govern both parts of the preceding sentence. Do the former words mean that the option is given both to appoint a majority simply, and to appoint a majority who shall be members of the Council?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think the words just proposed to be left out will now only apply to the last part of the paragraph—that the majority need not be members of the committee.
THE DUKE OK NORTHUMBERLAND: There is some doubt about it, to the uninitiated, at any rate, and I venture to suggest that if the noble Duke's interpretation is the right one, as no doubt it is, the paragraph should run—
" For the appointment by the Council of atleast a majority of the committee who, unless in the case of a county the Council shall otherwise determine, shall also be members of the Council."
Perhaps the noble Duke will consider that on the Report stage.
*LORD RIBBLESDALE: I hope, my Lords, that I may be able to mollify the hitherto adamantine front of the noble Duke, and persuade him to accept the Amendment I now rise to move. At the least, I can claim for it that it is purely and simply educational, and that it takes us out of that dreary waste of religion and local government in which we have been sojourning so long. I am very mindful of the kind and salutary lecture which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack read me just now, and I quite admit that as laymen we are perhaps too willing to accept a sort of Lord Dundreary-ish attitude towards the drafting of a Bill, and not take enough trouble to get at it exactly. However, apart from any knowledge of drafting English, I think I can make no mistake as to the meaning of this Clause. Apparently, "nomination" means that 'he persons referred to here must be
862
accepted by the County Council. The language is quite express. It says the scheme '; shall provide for the appointment by the Council on the nomination '; that is to say, the council are to have no option in the matter. These appointed nominees are to be the creation and the creatures of "other bodies' I suppose those other bodies are the Voluntary Schools Associations; or in the County Council of Middlesex they may be the Governors of Harrow, or, for anything in the Bill, they may be the College of Cardinals. As far as lam concerned, the area of choice cannot be too broad to please me: I should be willing even to welcome the appointment of the Agnostic squire in "Robert Ellesmere." It seems to me that the "religious atmosphere cannot be claimed for purely secular matters. Was it not said of a certain doctor of divinity by Porson—" that he would have been a great Greek scholar if he had not fuddled his brains with theology!" I object to the inflexible obligation this Clause places on the County Council; and my Amendment proposes to give the Council what I claim is the very modest privilege of refusing to accept (if you like, without giving any reasons) some of the gentlemen who may be nominated by the "other bodies." I freely admit the educational importance and value of this Clause as a whole (it is for that reason, as I said just now, a sort of bird of paradise in these discussions), and I especially press this Amendment, having regard to tin? determination of the Government, expressed by the Prime Minister in the other House and by the noble Duke in this House, that the local authority is to be in the true sense of the word the arbiter of educational matters in this country. I pause here to express my surprise at the noble Duke (Northumberland) saying that he is afraid that the county councillors of th future, instead of being the good old-fashioned gentlemen, versed in highway and drainage lore, and so on, will be men elected altogether on the education ticket, and that: County Councils will comprise much more educationists than any thing else. Now that the whole of the education of the country is to

863
be in the hands of the County Councils, I rather hope that the noble Duke is right; but, if he is right, that strengthens my contention, that it is very little to ask that these people who are to undertake the administration of education should not be obliged to accept, whether they like it or not, nominees from other bodies, but should be given the right which the word '' "recommendation" in place of the word "nomination" would give them, to refuse to accept such nominees if they could find better men. I trust the Government will give my Amendment favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 16, to leave out 'nomination' and insert 'recommendation'"—(The Lord Ribblesdale.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid that on this occasion I shall be obliged to maintain what my noble friend called my adamantine front; and decline to accept the Amendment. As they are closely connected, I may, perhaps, deal at the same time with this Amendment and that of the noble Earl (Northbrook)—[To leave out "on the nomination," and insert "from among the nominees"]. I confess that, of the two, the latter seems the less objectionable form, but I do not think it possible for us to accept either Amendment. We cannot yet know exactly how these schemes will be framed. They will have to be framed in the first instance, by the County Councils or Borough Councils themselves, and then elaborated with the assistance of the Education Department; but we hope that they will contain, perhaps among other elements, both I those elements which were mentioned by the noble Lord; we hope that they will contain provision for persons nominated by Associations of Schools, or at any rate provide for the representation of schools in some other manner; and also, we certainly expect and hope, that they will contain provisions for the nomination by educational institutions such as the University Colleges, which are in the area of the authority, and perhaps by some of the great public schools. I think the members of the committee thus nominated would be found to be of extreme value. But it is not
864
right, I think, to ask that bodies such as those I have mentioned should be asked to submit to the County Council a list of nominees, from whom the Council should select any they thought fit, or, perhaps, none at alL I think it is extremely desirable that the power of actual nomination by bodies of that sort should be contained in the scheme. It is no new principle. In schemes which have been drawn up by the Charity Commissioners, and schemes which are now drawn up by the Board of Education, for the management of certain endowments, invariably almost provision is made that certain members of the governing bodies should be nominated by certain institutions of the kind to which I have referred. I imagine that it is extremely improbable that institutions of that kind would consent to do what the noble Lords desire them to do, and, instead of having a right to nominate the person or persons they think most fit, to submit a list to be criticised, and perhaps rejected by the County Council. I think it is most desirable that these words should remain as they are.
*EARL SPENCER: I am sorry to hear the answer given by the noble Duke, for I attach also great importance to this matter. The Government have said that they wish to leave as much power as possible to the County Councils, and not to interfere with them. If that is so, the Councils should be left as independent as they can be, and so made to feel the responsibility of their duties. I maintain that if they are to have a number of their committees filled up in this way, without their having the direct nomination, it will take away from the responsibility of the Councils to a great extent. In the case of endowment schemes under the Charity Commissioners, to which the noble Duke referred, the circumstances are very different. I happen to be on the governing body of Harrow and on the governing body of Rugby. On those bodies there are, no doubt, persons nominated by different societies—one by the University of Cambridge, another by the Royal Society. But these bodies are not local bodies they meet in London, and it is perfectly easy for their members to meet. That

865
cannot be the case with County Councils. Take my own county. It has not a university in it; It is a considerable way from Oxford or Cambridge, and there is no public school or any body in it which could nominate persons on these committees. I therefore say that this is rather a deceptive method of taking experts on to these bodies. I prefer myself, as I have often said, elective members; but I should not object to have a limited number of co-opted members; but if they are to be co-optire members, I maintain that it is the Council who is responsible for everything, who should elect them rather than the Board of Education. I think the greater responsibility which rests on the County Councils ought to invest in them the power of selecting these co-optive members, rather than that the power should be vested in other bodies.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I should like to give the noble Lord a concrete case. In the scheme of the County Borough of Manchester it is probable that provision would be made for the nomination of a representative of Owens College. The noble Earl opposite, as Chancellor of the Victoria University, is very well acquainted with Owens College. Does he think that it would be consistent with the dignity of that institution to undertake the duty of sending in a list of names from whom the County Council might select one, or perhaps reject all? Does he not think that it would be more consonant with the dignity of that institution to give them the power, which we are perfectly certain that they would exercise wisely, of nominating the man they thought fittest to represent them?
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I should like to express what the feeling of the County Councils Association is as against this Clause as it stands. In the case the noble Duke has just put there is no doubt that the County Council would at once ask such a body as Owens College to make a nomination.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Under your proposal they would have to send in a list of nominees.
LORD NORTHBROOK: I am dealing not with the words, but with the substance of the proposal. Let me explain what the County Councils object to. What they resent is the power given by this Clause to the Board of Education to insist on the Council taking the nominees of other bodies. Under this Clause if there is any difference between the County Councils and the Board of Education, the Board of Education have the power to make a scheme, and in that scheme, as the Clause stands, the Board of Education would give the right (the noble Duke used the word "right") to make a nomination which the County Council would be bound to accept. That is a manner of treating County Councils which they very much resent. The language used by the noble Duke in this House, I am bound to say, is far less conciliatory than the language used by Sir William Anson in another place. When this matter was discussed in another place, the answer given to the objections raised on the part of the County Councils was that the Board of Education had no intention whatever of interfering with the action of the County Councils. The noble Marquess opposite, only the other day said that the real wish of the Board of Education was to act with the County Councils in this matter of nominees. But the noble Duke has taken another line tonight, and has talked about giving the "right" of nomination to members of the County Councils.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I said the scheme would probably provide it.
LORD NORTHBROOK: It is the same thing. If the Board of Education does not agree to any scheme giving this right, what is it but forcing the nominated members upon the County Council? That is what they object to. I will not detain your Lordships about the matter, because I see that your Lordships are not inclined to support the views of the County Councils; but I very much regret the tone of the noble Duke's objections to this Amendment. I will close by asking one question, which, I think, at any rate, we have a right to have answered. The wording of the Clause is this: "For the appointment by the Council on the

867
nomination where it appears desirable," and so on; but it does not say to whom it is to appear desirable.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I would like to intervene for one moment with regard to a remark that fell from the noble Earl opposite. The Board of Education will only intervene at the last moment, if all other assistance fails in the matter of selection. The Board of Education relies on those bodies to whom we have alluded to supply us with nominees, who will occupy a responsible place on the County Councils. But I endorse most cordially the words that fell from the noble Duke—that, if those important bodies representing colleges ami similar institutions are to be told to send a number of nominees, from whom the Councils may pick as they choose, they will refuse, and, I think, very justly. Possibly, one of the great schools might send up two of its tutors, and the senior might be passed over and the junior taken. Surely no public body is going to put itself in that position. It is in order to preserve the advantage of co-opting from those bodies to which I have alluded the nominees that they would select themselves, that I hope your Lordships will not agree to the proposed alteration of these words. I am convinced that if this Amendment is accepted, the loss would be that of the committees. It would lose the committees the advantage of these important and influential bodies sending representatives, and you would have to fall back, perhaps, on the Board of Education to send anyone they think fit, in consequence of your having refused to give these bodies the power of nominating.
*EARL SPENCER: With regard to the "concrete case" put to me by the noble Duke, I think it is very likely that the County Borough of Manchester would say, "We should certainly like to have a representative of Owens College; we will ask them to nominate one"; there would be no difficulty about it.
LORD MONKSWELL: On the Clause as it stands I understand the County Councils would be bound to accept these nominations, but Sir William Anson stated in another place that that was not the meaning of the Clause, and that the County Councils would not be obliged to
868
accept the nominations. I should like to ask what the view of the noble Duke is as to that?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It depends on the scheme.
LORD MONKSWELL: But when a nomination is sent to the County Council will the County Council have the power to refuse it?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I cannot tell what will be in the scheme until the scheme is proposed by the County Council.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: l think my noble friend is justified in pressing for an answer to this question. Is the County Council entitled to refuse the nomination of one of these bodies referred to in this section? This is a question not of the scheme, but of the interpretation of the section.
LORD WENLOCK: Will the noble Duke reply to the question of the noble Earl, as to the exact significance of the words "where it appears desirable?"
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think all noble Lords are just as capable of interpreting the words of the section as I am. I should think that "where it appears desirable," meant, where it appears desirable to the Council, but my interpretation does not carry any weight with it; noble Lords must make up their own minds as to what the words mean.
LORD NORTHBROOK: If I may be allowed to use the expression, I think that is rather a curious answer to come from the noble Duke, because an Amendment was moved in the House of Commons to insert after the word "desirable," the words "to the Council," and that Amendment the Government refused to accept. I think it would be very desirable not to put in such inflexible words if you have to make the confession that you do not know exactly what the words mean.
On Question, "That the word 'nomination' stand part of the Clause," resolved in the affirmative.
*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: My Lords, I attach very considerable importance to the Amendment I now rise to move. These education committees will have functions to perform which will be of the utmost importance to the non-provided schools. They will, at any rate, be an advisory committee, and very possibly they may be delegates of the County Council to carry into effect all the provisions of the Act. They will have, for instance, to deal with the question of repairs, which is a vital question for many of the smaller non-provided schools. They will have to deal with the question of extension of schools and the provision of new schools. They will have to deal with salaries to be allotted to teachers, and the number of teachers, and though I do not for a moment suppose that there will be any partiality on any education committee, yet there will be a natural bias for schools provided and maintained by themselves rather than for schools outside theirown particular province. It is of great importance that the views of the managers of the non-provided schools with regard to equality of scheme and equipment of every kind should be presented, at least, to the committee? Then they have the absolute control over the syllabus and over the text-books to be used. I can hardly fancy a point upon which the education committees are more likely (perhaps unwittingly) to go against the wishes of the managers of the non-provided schools if they do not hear what they have to say. A committee might recommend as a historical book Foxe's "Book of Martyrs," which might not suit some of the managers. There might be a variety of text-books upon which the managers of non-provided schools ought to be heard, because the peace of the schools and the pecuniary interests of the schools would be concerned. What chance have the managers of certain denominational schools in this country of any representation on the education committee. The Church of England is certain always to have both on the Council and on the education committee, members of their denomination who will, of course, present the case of the non-provided schools belonging to the Church of England; but the religious minorities, the Wesleyans, the Jews, the Roman Catholics, will not have the remotest chance of getting a member on the education committee, except by means of some such Amendment as that which I now propose.
870
Even with regard to the religious instruction you now give to the public by means of the two managers whom the County Council nominate and appoint a voice in the religious instruction of the school, and selected as they may be by the education committee, they may prove extraordinarily inconvenient and distasteful to the other managers of these schools. Surely it is only fair and just that somebody should be able to present to the education committee the views of the managers of the class of schools to which I refer. As I said, these small schools will have no chance of getting upon the education committees without some such provision. Noble Lords will observe that I limit the Amendment in two ways; in the first place, that the association shall be approved by the Board of Education, and therefore that it must be an Association which the Board of Education think competent to nominate a person who will be of use to the committee in the cause of education; and in the next place, there is the further condition that the nomination is not to apply to any class of schools except some class that would not otherwise obtain representation. So that if the County Council put a member of the denomination on the education committee of their own accord the right of nomination would not accrue. It is only to save these schools from being wholly unrepresented on a committee which is to deal with a variety of subjects which touch their pockets and affect in the strongest way the whole of the educational prosperity of the school, that I ask that this right of nomination shall be given to associations such as I have described. I shall be told, perhaps, by the noble Duke who, I trust, will at least meet this Amendment with indulgence and sympathy, that under the words "other bodies" such an association of voluntary schools as I have been speaking of could offer a nomination, but as I read the Clause that nomination need not be in the scheme. And that brings me to observe upon certain remarks that have fallen from Lord Northbrook and other noble Lords on that side of the House as to the effect of this Clause. It appears to me clear that unless the scheme names the body who is to nominate a member of the education committee, the body will have no right at all of making a nomination, and, consequently, no chance of getting an appointment. "Where it is

871
desirable" I think means, as the noble Duke said, desirable to the Council; therefore, if the Council do not think it desirable to nominate a particular body, that body would never get an appointment made. I quite agree that the Board of Education is not powerless in the matter; I think they have got a discretion also, because any scheme must be approved by them; consequently—I will not take an association of voluntary schools as an example, but I will take the case already put of Owens College, Manchester—the Board of Education might say "we will not approve of this scheme unless it includes Osvens College, Manchester, as having a right to nominate." Then Owens College would get into the scheme; but unless the scheme fixes the body who has the right to nominate, that right will not arise. If the body gets nominated in the scheme, then the appointment will follow. I am interested—of course I need not tell your Lordships—in the Roman Catholic schools, but what I am asking for is not for the benefit of Roman Catholic schools alone. The same privilege would attach to Jewish schools, and Wesleyan schools, and there may be places where even the powerful Church of England might be glad to take advantage of this Amendment. For aught I know there are some districts in Wales, and in some large boroughs, perhaps(Leicester for example), in which the Church of England would not have a member of the Church of England on the education committee, and in which, therefore, an association of voluntary schools belonging to the Church of England ought, according to the principle of this Amendment, to have the right of nominating a member to state their case on the education committee. I agree that such an association of voluntary schools as I have described may be possibly admitted to be one of the bodies who might be in the scheme, but the chance of their being in the scheme laid down by the County Council is not a very proximate chance. Boards of Education are not infallible, and there might be Hoards of Education who absolutely refuse to sanction any scheme of this sort. Therefore it is that I put my Amendment after the word "nomination" and before the words "where it appears desirable." I do hope that your Lordships will think that I am not asking too much when I ask that an association of
872
schools belonging to a religious minority, possibly a minority that is in the locality extremely unpopular and even odious, should yet have a representative on a committee which is to deal with matters of the closest and dearest interest to them. I believe I should be out of order if I quote the words used in another place by the Prime Minister, but he said that he thought there ought to be some method discovered, by which the representation of these religious minorities should be ensured on the education committees. Noble Lords opposite have repeatedly urged that all interests ought to be represented, and I am now pleading for an interest ought to be represented, and I am now pleading for an interest which, unless it has a voice, is not unlikely to receive unjust treatment at the hands of some education committees. I trust I shall be met with some sympathy from the "adamantine front" of the noble Duke, and I can only appeal to him that he will not entirely refuse the scheme of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 16, after 'nomination' to insert 'of associations of voluntary schools within their area, approved by the Board of Education, and comprising a class of schools which would not otherwise obtain representation on the committee, &e."
LORD REDESDALE: I must apologise for intervening in this debate, being so recently a Member of your Lordships' House, but this Amendment of my noble friend's affects a class in which I am very largely interested. It appears to me that the Amendment, while safeguarding the class of schools to which my noble friend referred, cuts out other bodies.
*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: No, I do not cut them out. I leave other bodies subject to the pleasure of the County Council first, and of the Education Department, but "and other bodies" remains exactly where it is after the words "where it appears desirable."
LOUD REDESDALE: I do not think it is quite clear here, but I will not press the point.
THE DUKE OK DEVONSHIRE: The terms of the sub-Section were certainly intended not to exclude associations of voluntary schools, and although it was not in drafting, the Clause considered necessary or desirable that associations should

873
be specifically mentioned, other ways of providing what the noble Lord desires might be found. But I understand that something very much approaching a pledge has been given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on this subject, and I think I may say that we will undertake to deal with the matter on Report. I do not think the Amendment drafted by the noble Lord could be accepted, but we will undertake to insert the words "including associations of voluntary schools" after the word "bodies," so that the Clause would run:
"For the appointment by the Council on the nomination, where it appears desirable, of other bodies, including associations of schools."
and so on. If necessary, the matter can be further discussed on Report, but I will at once move that those words be there inserted.
*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: I gratefully accept what the noble Lord says—that he will introduce these words now—but may I reserve to myself the right of considering the matter further on Report?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Certainly.
*VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: Then I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Amendment made—
"In page 10, line 17 after the word 'bodies,' be inserted the words "including associations of voluntary schools.'"—(The Lord President.)
*LORD COLERIDGEsaid the Amendment he now moved provided for the retirement of the members of the education committees. If the committee were merely a committee of the Council of a County Borough, of course it would come to an end with the life of the body who appointed it. If the view of the Government was that an education committee of a County Council was in the same position, there would be no need of this Amendment, but he understood the education committee was not a committee of the County Council; in other words, the County Council was capable of nominating persons on to the education committee, who would remain members of the committee long after they had
874
ceased to be members of the Council. That was an anomaly that ought to be remedied. What period was to be placed on membership of the committee? Were the nominated members to be members for life, or for a definite period? In the Lower House, Sir William Anson had said that nobody had ever dreamt that the Committees were to be permanent bodies, and expressed the view that members of the Council on the committee would cease to be on the committee when they ceased to be members of the Council. But what then would be the position of the committee? It would be left with only the co-opted members. His Amendment was framed to meet the double case of the County Council and the Borough Councils. Members of the latter went out in thirds, and therefore the Council itself never carne to an end; he therefore proposed that no member of an education committee, whether a member of a Borough Council or of a County Council, should remain a member of the committee for more than three years.
Amendment moved—
"Page 10, line 2o, after 'committee,' to insert as a new paragraph:—' (C) for the periodic retirement of members of the committee, so that no member of the committee shall be appointed for a longer period than three years, but so that every member on retirement shall be eligible for re-appointment.' "—(Ten Lord Coleridge.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid this was a question to be decided rather in the scheme than in the Bill. Sub-Section (2) of Clause 22 provided that—
"Any scheme or Provisional Order under this Act may contain such incidental or consequential provisions as may appear necessary or expedient."
It would not be desirable to lay down exactly the same conditions for every scheme.
Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF GAMPERDOWNsaid that sub-Section (4) provided that a person should be disqualified for membership of an education committee who held office or place of profit, or had any share or interest in a contract, and so on, but it wound up that—
"No such disqualification shall apply to a person by reason only of his holding office in a school or college, aided, provided or main-ained by the Council."
His original intention was (and it would perhaps have been more logical) to move to delete this proviso altogether; but it had been pointed out to him that it might be desirable that a person should be on the committee who belonged to a college, and therefore he would content himself with proposing to leave out the words "school or." He held that the proper place for a schoolmaster was in his school, and it would be no gain to the school or to the committee if the schoolmaster left his school work and devoted his time to the work of the committee, as would frequently be the case.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 31, to leave out 'school or.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDasked how the noble Earl differentiated between a school and a college. In the definition Clause the word "college" was declared to include "any educational institution, whether residential or not." Would anything, therefore, he gained by the omission in this Section of the words "school or"?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he was not the draftsman of the Bill, and was not responsible for its definitions, or anything else.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid the Government substantially agreed with the noble Earl, but he thought the case could be best met by the addition to the sub-Section of the words "otherwise than under Part III. of this Act." That would exclude teachers in elementary schools.
*EARL SPENCER: Will it also exclude teachers in a college?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No.
*EARL SPENCER: I cannot quite see the difference. If you exclude a teacher in an elementary school because he may be interested in a subject coming up before the Committee, does not the same argument apply to a teacher in a college within the county?
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I rather regret the decision of the Government, for this reason. On the
876
Technical Instruction Committees elementary school teachers are frequently found to be most valuable members, as they bring a knowledge on many subjects which is by no means common among managers. I hope the Government will reconsider this.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of the noble Duke, and to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Amendment made—
"In page 10, line 32, by adding after the word 'Council,' the words "otherwise than under Part III. of this Act."—(The Lord President.)
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, explaining the next Amendment, said he thought it very desirable to have these co-opted members on the committee, but I he did not think they ought to be allowed I to vote in respect of their own salaries.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 32, after 'council' to in-sert 'Provided that no such person shall vote on any question relating to the salary or conditions of employment of any member of the teaching staFf of any such school or college." (The Earl of Northbrook.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Does the noble Lord think this necessary, after the Amendment that has just been I made?
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Sub-Section (c) of this Clause runs thus—
"The County Council shall charge such portion as they think fit, not being less than one-half or more than three-fourths of any expenses incurred by them in respect of capital expenditure on account of the provision or improvement of any public elementary school on the parish or parishes which in the opinion of the Council are served by the school."

877
Under that sub-Section at least one-fourth, and possibly up to half, of the capital expenditure on a school which is incurred by the County Council may be put upon the general county rate. Now, I want to ask what are the reasons for the insertion of the words, "not being less than one-half or more than three-fourths." As the Bill originally stood the words ran—
"The County Council shall charge any expenses on that parish which in the opinion of the Council is served by the school."
That was perfectly just, and it was a principle to which the Government for a long time adhered. I have endeavoured to trace what occurred, and I find that the Government for a long time argued that this was the right thing to do, as I believe your Lordships will think also, but at some period, for some reason that. I cannot ascertain, at all events from the Debates, these words were inserted. So that the result now is that, wherever a new school is built by the County Council, at least one-fourth of the cost will be thrown on the county generally. I ask, is that fair to the other parishes, who have already borne the expenditure of providing their own schools? I do not understand how it can be justified. The Government have stated that it is their wish to keep all denominational schools as they are, but if you want to turn a denominational school into a county school nothing will do it so rudely as this sub-Section. After all, it is pounds;. s. d. that governs the British ratepayer; and I put it to all noble Lords who have had any experience in these matters, whether it is not really economy in the rates that has had more to do with stopping School Boards than any other cause. This Clause is one of several reasons—one or two of which I have quoted in the course of these debates— that make me see very clearly that the number of voluntary schools will be rapidly reduced.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 3, to leave out from 'charge' to 'any' in line 5." — (The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The County Council has to decide whether a new school is to be built in the parish or not, and it appears that some part of
878
the expenses ought to be borne by the authority which is to decide on the erection of the new school. If that were not so, the Council would be deciding on expenditure which the country as a whole has not got to meet. The change has been rendered necessary by the new financial Clauses introduced into the Bill. The Necessitous Schools Grant formerly available for the purpose of new schools now goes to the county and not to the district. The Bill thus actually deprives them of some revenue which would have been at their disposal under the old system. For that reason also, it appears desirable that the whole of the expenditure should not be thrown upon the locality, but that part of it should be borne by the county.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Duke says that the Necessitous Schools Grant was formerly applied for capital expenditure. I speak subject to correction; but is the noble Duke sure that he is right? I rather think that that grant was never given for those purposes, only for increasing schools and so on.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The noble Earl is thinking of the Aid Grant for Voluntary Schools. The Necessitous Schools Grant was given to the locality, and was available for any portion of their expenditure, including the payment of interest on the debt for building schools.
*EARL SPENCER: I hardly think the noble Duke has quite understood this Amendment. I may not properly understand it myself; but I do not think my noble friend at all disputes the point that this charge should be divided.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Yes I do; certainly.
*EARL SPENCER: As I read it, if the Amendment was carried, it will leave to the County Council to say what part of the charge is to go on the parish.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No.
*EARL SPENCER: Anyhow, that, I maintain, is the proper way of doing it. We continually have questions on the

879
County Councils as to what is to be given out of the county rates for improvements in particular places. That is one of the matters on which they are most particular, and they do it with the greatest care. I think the best thing is not to tie it up strictly, but to leave it open to the County Council to settle what part should be paid by the county rate and what by the parish.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I think that this is one of the most I important points that we could have discussed during these debates. The noble Lord said it is right that we should bear the cost of these additions to schools because the County Council is the body to determine whether the addition should be made or not. I would point out that it is not altogether at the discretion of the County Councils; if the population increases, increased accommodation becomes an absolute necessity. Section(d) contains the same provision with regard to expenses incurred to meet liabilities on loans of transferred School Boards. I happen to have property in two counties at the opposite ends of England, and in each case this proviso will bear very hardly. Take the county of Northumberland. In Tyneside you have a very thickly populated manufacturing and colliery population, and in the west of the county you have an area larger than the county of Suffolk, and more thinly populated than any county of England— moor-land and hill country. This latter part of the county has provided voluntary schools during all this time at its own expense, and now what you are going to say to these people in this thinly populated district is, "You must, whether the County Council likes it or not, bear one-half—you may have to bear three-fourths—of the debt which this rich, populous, growing part of the country has incurred for its schools, and, more than that, if in the future this growing, rich, and populous part of the county goes on increasing, as it inevitably will, you will have to bear one-half, and perhaps three-fourths of all the additional accommodation that will be required." It seems to me impossible to conceive anything more monstrous. These country districts have nothing whatever
880
to do with the towns. I do not say that the proximity of a large town may not increase the prosperity of a country district, but in these large areas it does so very slightly. It is most unfair that these country districts should bear the expense incurred by the rich part of the county. I just mentioned a county in. which I had property, namely, the county of Suffolk. I will not detain your Lordships with details, but everybody knows that there are parts of the county of Suffolk which are very populous; unfortunately for myself, I know also that there are rural districts in Suffolk where there is a dry and unproductive sandy soil, and where it is almost impossible to let your farms, so much depressed is agriculture. That is the district you are going to charge with the expenses of school accommodation in the environs of London. I say I cannot conceive anything more unjust from any point of view. I should like to point out that the argument of the noble Duke, that the County Council are the people who incur this expenditure is in. the case of past expenditure, if he will, allow me to say so with all respect, incorrect. The County Councils have not incurred the debts of the School Board, and with regard to the new Councils it-is incorrect in another sense, because it is not at the discretion of the County Council to give additional accommodation, but it depends on the rate of increase in the population.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Let rne draw your Lordships' attention to what the effect of this Amendment would be. In either case it would be to, place everything on the parish in which the school was situated. I think it would be unfair. We consider that the-county ought to take over some of the burdens of these rates.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREmoved, an Amendment to provide for the case where, instead of building a school, the: premises are hired.
Amendment moved—
"In page 15, line 6, after 'expenditure,' to, insert 'or rent.' "—(The Duke of Dexonshire.)
*EARL SPENCER: I think that this Amendment raises again the question of Privilege. The same Amendment was put down in another place on Report, and it was struck out by the Speaker because it had not gone through the proper form of a Resolution in the Committee of Ways and Means. If this is put in here, I presume it will be ruled out by the Speaker in the same way.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think, probably, the noble Earl anticipates rightly the fate which any Amendment of this sort would meet with in another place, but according to the opinion of high authorities this House is not debarred by any ruling of its own from discussing such points; it is entirely for its own consideration whether it should discuss at much length Amendments of which we know the almost certain fate when they reach another place.
LORD TWEED MOUTH: I would only remind your Lordships that in 1897 the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack interfered twice or thrice. or four times, with noble Lords on this side in their moving Amendments, and that they acquiesced in his advice, and that the House on that occasion did not discuss (and I think wisely) privilege Amendments such as this.
*THE EARL OF HALSBUHY: I must repeat to your Lordships what I have more than once said in the course of these debates. Indeed, I think it is irregular, and not right after what I have already explained, that the noble Lord should attribute to me a course of action which I have more than once explained that I never took. What I in did 1897 was this, and I should be prepared to do it again. Certain Amendments were proposed which seemed to me so flagrant and so outrageous a breach of the privilege of the House of Commons that it would be absolutely certain that when they went to another place they would be struck out. I did nothing beyond this. I put it to the noble Lords—I think these were the words—to consider whether it was consistent with the dignity of this House to discuss and divide upon Amendments which undoubtedly would be rejected by the
882
House of Commons. That is all I did, and then without any determination of this House the noble Lords, apparently being convinced by my observations—it was only advice—acting on their own motion and their own responsibility, withdrew all their Amendments. That is what happened, and I hope it will not be quoted again as any ruling by me when it was only a suggestion.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I did not quote it as a ruling of the noble and learned Lord. I said it was by the advice of the noble and learned Lord, that those Amendments were withdrawn. However, the fact remains that the noble Duke opposite admits that he fears the same fate will be shared by these particular Amendments that he is moving.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Not this Amendment.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I thought the noble Duke said so.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Well I hope that will not be the case.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I appeal to the House whether that was not the idea that was conveyed by what the noble Duke said—that he admitted the fate which this Amendment was likely to meet.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: No; I meant the Amendment which we have just been discussing. I do not know what view might be taken of my Amendment, but I trust that as it is really little more than a drafting Amendment, and is necessary to supply an omission in the scheme of the Bill, it may get through, but the other Amendment which we have been discussing up to now would have boon, I think, met with a complete reversal.
*EARL SPENCER: I only referred to, the question of the word "rent."
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: And my noble friend made his point perfectly clear. Positively the Amendment now proposed by the noble Duke is one that was ruled out of order by the Speaker on Report in the other House, because it had not been introduced in the Committee of Ways and Means.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: As to that I will not speak with certainty, but I hope the other House will be disposed to take a lenient view of any breach of its privileges that it may consider that we have committed.
On Question,"That the word ' rent' be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I have an Amendment on the Paper, in page 12, line 7, after the words "public elementary school," to insert the words "provided by them." It must be a county school which is built; if it were a voluntary school being built it would be impossible for any expenditure to be made upon that by the County Council 'Owing to Clause (d) which obliges the voluntary schools to provide any money for purposes of that sort. I think these words will have to be inserted.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I regret that I have been unable to hear the observations of the noble Lord. Perhaps he will bring the matter up on Report.
The EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then I wish to move an Amendment in sub-Section (d), which again raises the point we were discussing on sub-Section (c). Sub-Section (d) is a very much more serious matter. This sub-Section provides that of the loans incurred by School Boards that are taken over, not less than one-fourth, and possibly up to one-half, may be charges upon the general county rate. I really cannot understand upon what principle that proposal is made. Remember, these are loans with regard to expenditure from which the county has had no benefit whatever. The county parishes have all been obliged to build their own schools in the best way they could. The board schools have built their schools out of these loans, but now, when they are transferred to the County Council, the county is to be forced to come upon its rates for no less than one-fourth, and possibly for one-half, of the portion of the loans remaining. This is not the original principle of the Bill. The original principle was that these loans should be charged and levied on the
884
districts in which they had been incurred. That was the just and proper course to take, but now a very considerable portion of these loans are to be paid by the county. I will give a single concrete instance that has been furnished tome. The Chairman of the Worcester County Council says that the county has had no benefit whatever from these loans, and nothing to do with contracting them, but he says "at the present time in Worcester county. the School Boards owe a sum of £110.000." It follows from this enactment that no less than £29,000, and possibly £58,000, may be put upon the general rates of the county. I am utterly at a loss to understand upon what principle that imposition is raised.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 11, to leave out 'not being less than one-half, or more than three-fourtlis.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is very edifying, of course, to hear the speeches of the noble Lord, but l can only repeat the answer I gave when we were discussing sub-Section (c), namely, that the County Council are now drawing the Necessitous Schools Grant under the Act of 1897, which used to go to the parishes in aid of these loans, and therefore that the county should in justice take some part of the burden.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What is the amount that they used to draw?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: As I understand the Clause, the County Council, in taking over the liabilities of extinct School Boards, is responsible for three-fourths of that liability. It is obvious that one-fourth still remains to be paid. I should like to know who is going to pay that.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is paid by whoever pays it now.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: But the School Boards are extinct.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The parishes liable for it before are liable for it still. Surely sub-Sections (c) and (d) must go together, and we have already decided that the whole county is to be liable for a portion.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But this is past expenditure.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This is past, but I say if the county, as we have decided, is to be liable for a part of the future expenditure on the provision of new schools, it would not be equitable that districts referred to in Section (d) should go on paying the whole of their expenses and a portion of the expenses of the rest of the county
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It is not their expenses; it is the liavilities the School Boards incurred previously to their being handed over to the County Council.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: But they are to pay the expenses exactly the same as the country does in the future.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: All I can say is, that it is a very ordinary principle that everybody should pay hiown debts. However, I clearly cannot take the matter further.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
"In page 12, line 13, after 'loans' to insert or rent; in line 28, after 'apply' to insert in lieu of the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, relating to accounts and audit'; in lines 36 and 37 to leave out 'committee or managers' and insert 'education committee established under this Act, or to the managers of any public elementary school'; in line 38, after 'anthority,' to insert 'but the auditor of those accounts shall have the same powers with respect to managers as the local education authority.' "—(The Lord President.)
Amendments Agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:—
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREexplained that the Amendment he had to move was suggested by the Local Government Board, who were of opinion that they might want to hold local inquiries, not only with respect to sanctioning loans, but also with respect to giving their sanction to an extension of
886
the limit of rate under Clause 2, and with respect to making Orders adapting the provisions of local Acts.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 6, to leave out sub-Scetion (2)."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:—
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELLremarked upon the large powers of delegation which this Clause gave, and drew the attention of the Government to the provisions of the Parish Councils Act, which distinctly prohibited Parish Councils having any part in the management of parish schools. This Clause might refer to schools or colleges, which no one would desire should be put under the control of Parish Councils; while, on the other hand, the parish schools were deliberately excluded by the Clause must have crept in by some oversight.
Amendment moved—
"In page 13, line 17, to leave out 'or parishes.'"
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think this had better be put down on Report.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that as this Clause stood, there seemed to be no power to make any grant to an evening school under the Elementary Education Act for the teaching of anything but the three R's. He did not think to limit the teaching in such a school. A great many other things were taught in the elementary day schools; why should the evening schools be specially restrieted? He did not appreciate making such a fetish of the three R's Many students

887
might desire to learn a great deal more than the three R's, and it would be of advantage for them to receive instruction in some practical subjects. The Amendment he proposed would leave the education authority to define the elementary instruction which was suitable to the needs of the district.
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 13, to leave out 'instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic,' and insert 'elementary instruction.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Before any discussion is taken upon this, I may be allowed to say that this is an extremely important and also a rather complicated question. I am intending to confer with the Prime Minister upon the subject in the course of tomorrow, and I shall probably be able to state the view of the Government better upon the Report stage.
*THE LOEDBISHOP OF HEREFORD: Then I withdraw the Amendment for the moment.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved an Amendment to sub-Section 11. As the Bill passed the House of Commons, the sub-Section read—
"That county councillors elected for an electoral division, consisting wholly of a borough or urban district, whose Council are a local education authority, tor the purpose of Part III. of this Act shall not act or vote."
The words "act or" were struck out presumably because it was thought that voting was acting and that the words were superfluous. He thought, however, the word "vote" should not stand alone; he did not see why the time of the council should be taken up by speeches of members who had no interest in the matters in hand. He moved that the words should be "shall not speak or vote."
Amendment moved,—
"In page 15, line 26, after 'not,' to insert speak or.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
*EARL SPENCERsaid this was a point of some difficulty; it really introduced what was an old friend to some of their
888
Lordships—namely, the in-and-out question, which on a certain Irish Bill was very much discussed. The in-and-out method was applied in London on various County Councils. The provision in the Bill would work very curiously. Take a Borough Council that had authority under certain Acts separately from the authority of the County Council. Two or three county councillors might be on the Borough Council, and under the Bill those councillors could not vote on the County Council on educational matters, although they might vote on the Borough Council. Again, take a committee of the Education Department; if it was purely a committee for primary education they could not vote there, but if it was an advisory committee of the Education Department—a committee to advise on primary education as well as on secondary schools—what would happen then? Again, there might be a county inspector who was county inspector for both secondary and primary educatoin. Were these members of the same authority to abstain from voting or not? It would be an important matter to the authority in the case of two or three of its very best men on the education committee being thrown out by reason of this Clause. The matter was very complicated. With regard to the Amendment, he did not see why, if these persons were to be excluded from voting, they should not be excluded also from speaking.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the provision which was originally inserted in the Bill in Committee in the House of Commons contained the words "actor." These words were, however, subsequently struck out in the House of Commons on the suggestion of a great many Members that they would prevent many of their best men being on the various education committees. It was thought that these members would be most useful to the committees, although they did not vote, if they could attend the meetings and speak on the various subjects that came up for discussion. It is quite possible there may be some complication such as suggested by the noble Earl, but I do not understand exactly what it is. All it says is that they cannot vote on any matters, relating to Part III. of the Act.
*EARL SPENCER: But the committee may be a committee to act for secondary and also for primary education. They would be voting really for the election of the committee that was to attend to primary education.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: This provision refers to the authority itself, not to the committee.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Yes, and that seems to me to be the answer to the noble Duke. The words are "in respect of any question arising before the County Council." There is nothing to prevent the County Councils appointing the members of the committees. What this says is that when something is coming up before the County Council they shall not vote. Then I say if they cannot vote they should not speak. If the noble Duke is right, it would mean that they could not vote on the education committee. It cannot mean that.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Suppose it were a question of appointion an inspector for secondary education and elementary education, then these particular people could vote for his appointment as inspector of secondary education. but not for his appointment as inspector of elementary education.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: With regard to the question of speaking and not voting, it is exactly the same provision as is in force now on County Councils with regard to small boroughs that had to manage certain matters; they are allowed to speak on the County Council, but not allowed to vote. It is a convenient procedure; there is no reason why they should not be allowed to speak, but if there is a division, they ought not to be allowed to record a vote.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREmoved to add the following new sub-Sections—
"Sub-Sections 1 and 5 of Section 87 of the Local Goveniment Act. 1888 (which relate to local enquiries), shall apply with inspect to any order, consent, sanction, or approval which the Local Government Board are authorised to make or give under this Act.
890
"The amount which would be produced by any rate in the pound shall be estimated for the purposes of this Act in accordance with the regulations made bv the Local Government Board.
"Teachers in a school maintained, but not provided, by the local education authority shall be in the same position as respects disqualification for office as members of the authority as teachers in a school provided by the authority."
Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND, in moving the next Amendment, said it surely could not be intended that the census of 1901 should be operative for all time.
Amendment moved—
"In page 15, line 33, to leave out 'census of 1901' and insert 'last published census.'"— (The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It certainly is very much intended. It is proposed to make a stereotyped distinction between those boroughs which are autonomous and those which are not. If it was not for this provision, no County Council would be able to make a scheme for organising the education within its borough; it would never know what boroughs shall be included in the county and what may become autonomous.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Then I understand if a county in future increases and becomes very much larger, and is large enough under this section to claim a separate jurisdiction, it is not to have it because it is estimated, not upon its then population, but on the population of 1901. Allow me to give an instance. There is a borough now which is composed of 9,000; in ten years, when the next census is taken, it is found to have 20,000 people; but because it was 9,000 in the year 1901 this Act is not to apply. Surely that cannot lie intended.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is intended. If the other principle were adopted the borough of 10,000, which now is under the Bill autonomous, when the population fell to 9,000, ought to cease to be autonomous. That is not the proposal. It is proposed that those boroughs which are in the position described in the Bill shall be and remain autonomous, so

891
that both they, and the counties, should be able to organise their educational schemes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
First Schedule:—
THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid the Amendment he proposed to move was intimately connected with the point their Lordships had been discussing on Clause 18. As he was not in his place during that discussion, he might be permitted to say that his object in putting down these Amendments was to make it perfectly clear that when the sub-committed of the education committee of the County Council acted in its capacity as a school attendance committee, it shoukd have power to act in the capacity without reference to the committee or the Council. He understood that that was really the intention of the Bill. If he had some assurance from the noble Duke that words would be inserted in the Bill to make that quite clear, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 17, line 25, after 'fit' insert 'And may, subject as aforesaid, delegate to any such sub-committee any powers or duties which may have been delegated to the committee by the Council. Every such sub-committee shall report its proceedings to the committee by which it was appointed, but to the extent to which the committee shall, subject as aforesaid, so direct the acts and proccedings of the sub-committee shall not be required to be submitted for approval to the committee or to the Council.' "—(The Earl of Lytton.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I believe that it will be possible to introduce words on Report which will make the point quite clear.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved to substitute "six months" for "three months" as the maximum interval between the meetings of managers. Many of these schools were in sparsely-populated districts, and there was no necessity for such frequent
892
meetings. He saw no necessity for putting any limitation at all but if any were to be put in the inconvenience would be diminished by making it six months instead of three.
Amendment moved—
"In page 18, line 10, to leave out 'three' and insert 'six.' "—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONDHIREsaid another noble Lord on the opposite side had proposed that the maximum should be one month. Three months was a pretty fair compromise.
LORD WENLOCKthought the noble Earl could not have been a manager of a school or he would not have made such a proposition.
*LORD REAYwas able to state that his noble and learned friend, Lord Davey, had put the Amendment on the Paper as, from his actual experience as member of a School Board in a rural parish, he knew that the to meet once a month, and even oftener. The school was very efficient.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDremarked that that was rather a reason for his Amendment. There might be many boards of managers who wish to meet frequently, but why compel them to meet when it might not be necessary?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:—
Drafting Amendments made.
Amendments made—
"In page 20, line 36, after 'day' to insert as a new paragraph, '(15). During the period between the passing of this Act and the appointed day, the managers of any public elementary school, whether provided by a School Board or not, and any school attendance committee, shall furnidh to the Council, which will on the appointed day become the local education authority, such information as the Council may reasonably require.' "—(The Lord President.)
*LORD KINNAIRD: Apparently several noble Lords have been approached with reference to the Amendment I now rise to

893
move, and I understand that the answer given in another place with reference to the reason for excluding teachers of voluntary schools is not altogether considered satisfactory, and the teachers therefore desire to have their Lordships' opinion upon this matter. I understand that in another place the answer was that the School Boards ceased to exist, and that therefore, as it was necessary to put the teachers under some new authority, and therefore it was well to mention them; whereas the employers of the voluntary school teachers arc not dispossessed, and therefore there is no reason to protect their interests. I think your Lordships will see that there are possible eventualities which might make it very necessary to protect the interests of the voluntary school teachers. For instance, there are several hundreds of voluntary school teachers whose salaries have, through care and passing good examinations and long service, risen considerably, and above the salaries of School Board teachers. Under the now authority the salaries of those teachers might be decreased, and they might be told that if they did not care to take the reduced salary they had better go. I understand that without those words being put in they would not get the protection that is afforded to School Board teachers. Then there is another question: there might be a doubling up of sundry schools. Under the School Boards it would be obligatory on the School Board authoritv to find some other occupation or to give a retiring allowance. That would not bo the case with voluntary school teachers. There are many other questions that might arise. I will not trouble your Lordships further at this late hour, but the teachers aie anxious to know whether the Government would consider their position, either by accepting this Amendment, or by dealing with the matter in their own way on Keport.
Amendment moved—
"In page 21, line 16, after 'officers' to insert 'or teachers.' ''—(The Lord Kinnaird.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: There is no doubt the fact that the School Board teacher is technically described as an officer, whereas the voluntary teacher is net so described, makes some difference in their respective positions. The word "officers" appears in the Bill with regard
894
to defence and so on whore the word "teachers" does not appear. It is easy to see that that would naturally cause a great deal of uneasiness to voluntary school teachers. I therefore trust that the question will be made clear in some way.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My noble friend, Lord Meath, who is nfortunately prevented by indisposition from being here, has asked me to speak for him. I understand from what the noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) has said, that the argument which was used when this matter was raised in the other House was that the masters, so to speak, of the teachers has changed in the board schools, whereas thev had not changed in the voluntary schools, and therefore the teachers in the voluntary schools were not entitled to the advantages of the teachers in the board schools.
*LORD KINNAIRD: I should like to read what was actually said. This is what appears in the Hansard report. Sir William Anson said:
'"Recorded service,' for the purpose of The Elementary School Teachers' (Superannuation) Act. 1898, does not include service in technical and secondary schools. But teachers transferred to such schools will not lose the benefit of the contributions they have already made while in 'recorded service.' The Government have no inteition of extending the provisions of the Superannuation Act."
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: It was a true and sound argument, I think, to say that the masters in both schools had been changed. You are changing the School Board into the local Education authority and you are changing the managers into the local education authority also, because you are giving to the education authority the power of dismissing these teachers "on educational grounds." I should like to ask the noble Duke this question. Would it be an "educational ground" to dismiss a teacher because you could get one cheaper. That case is extremely likely to arise. Supposing the education authority can say—" We can get some good leaching at a cheaper rate than we are paying for it," would that justify them, in dismissing the teacher on educational grounds? If not, then, are we to understand that no consideration of salary will justify the dismissal of a teacher by the education authority? If fixity of tenure

895
as regards all questions of salary can be conferred on the teachers that should be comprised in the Bill. I cannot help thinking that it is far more advisable to have any points of this sort settled in the Bill, so that the persons affected can see it rather than depend on utterances made in either House of Parliament.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I submit, my Lords, that it is a simple matter of justice that the teachers of the denominational schools should be placed on an equality with the officers of the board schools in this matter. I have had a large number of representations made to mo by teachers in various parts of the country who think that their interests are in danger. We must remember who these teachers are. Many of them are men who might have been receiving a larger salary in board schools than they consented to take in voluntary schools, simply because they wished to cany out the principles and the teaching of the Church to which they belonged. If it is intended by this Bill that the teachers shall be placed on an equality with the officers of the board schools, then we ask that that should be made plain on the face of the Bill, so that there may be no discussion or dissension hereafter on this point.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid it is impossible to do what is asked. It appears unnecessary to put these teachers into this paragraph at all. They have their own Government Pension Scheme, and there is no need for placing them under the local authorities' scheme. The School Board teachers are, as a matter of fact, within the provisions of this paragraph, as they are transferred officers. Voluntary school teachers, however, are not, and cannot be, under these provisions, because they are not in any sense of the word transferred officers. They remain under the managers under whom they have been already, and there is nothing in this Bill which affects their position.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendmcent moved—
"In page 21, line 21, after 'officer' to insert 'or teachers.' "—(The Duke of Northunberland.)
On question, Amendment negatived.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule:—
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELDmoved an Amendment with the object of placing the trustees of school buildings in the same position in relation to those school buildings as they would lie in if they were owners of those buildings. The powers possessed by School Boards by this Bill were transferred to the local authorities. Amongst those powers was the power to purchase as well as to receive transfers of school buildings in accordance with the arrangements under the 23rd Clause of the Act of 1870. An arrangement under that Clause might provide for the absolute conveyance to the local authority of all the interest possessed by the managers or by any trustee for them, or for the school. Therefore a majority of two-thirds of the managers, with certain limitations, would be able under the provisions of the Act to alienate the school buildings and sell thorn to the authority. It was true that there were certain safeguards in the Act of 1870. First, the consent of the Board of Education was required; secondly, if there were subscribers there must be a resolution of two-thirds of the subscribers; and, thirdly, notice had to be served of the intention of the managers on any trustee who was not a manager. Certain things, however, had happened since 1870, which somewhat altered the position. The subscribers would be a varying quantity now, and as the subscribers would no longer be asked for maintenance, the number of subscribers would be reduced and their interest considerably diminished. With regard to the alienation of property in school buildings simply by a resolution of a majority of two thirds of the managers, it must be recollected that the trustees of the buildings were not always themselves managers, and although they might be notified of the fact that the managers proposed to part with the buildings, they might not be first consulted. Again, there had been an alteration in the composition of the committee of managers. There were now on the committee of management two members elected by an outside authority; they had no interest in the buildings themselves, and it would

897
seem to be a new proposal to give those who had no beneficial interest in the property the right to act on the question of the disposal of that property. Then, the value of that property had enormously increased in the last ten years. In the county of Stafford alone more than £150,000 had been spent on building, adding to, and improving Church schools since the year 1891. That enormous increase in the value of property ought to be taken into consideration. It was a witness to the fact that those who subscribed that largo amount were deeply in earnest in the work they did. He submitted that it was fair in these circumstances that the trustees should have the same privileges as the owners of property had under the Act of 1870.
Amendment moved—
"In page 22, line 13, after 'payable,' insert' (3.) The consent of the trustees of a school shall be required to any arrangement made under Section 23 of the Elementary Kducation Act of 1870.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Lichfield.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The right rev. Bishop will hardly expect me to follow him in the rather minute legal arguments which he has mentioned. I am advised that under Section 23 of the Act of 1870, to which the right rev. Bishop has referred, which relates to trustees of school, the interests of the trustees are protected in every possible way. The Board of Education have to give notice before any transfer to every trustee or owner; they have to consider objections and to give due regard to them, and no transfer can take place without the consent of the Board of Education. The Board of Education is charged with the duty of protecting private and public interests. I cannot imagine that it would be a convenient course to require the consent of every trustee of the school to transfers under the 23rd Section of the Act of 1870. I am advised, and believe, that that Act contains every provision which is really necessary and essential for the protection of the individual trustees.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendments made.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule amended and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Saturday next; the Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 195.)

LONDON WATER BILL
Referred to the Examiners.

MAIL SHIPS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read, 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aa Tomorrow.—(The Earl of Selborne.) (No. 196.)
House adjourned at a quarter-past Twelve o'clock a.m. till half-past Ten o'clock a.m.